Depends how much of a service pack it is. XP->Vista made some pretty big kernel changes, enough to justify the version. Vista->7 really didn't change anything much, so it's like a service pack.
No. This is essentially an extension of the cookie.
The web has changed. I don't like a lot of the changes, but this is one of the good ones. Actually, most of HTML5 is a great idea. Would you rather rely on Quicktime and Flash to do everything in the standard? I sure don't.
You're being ignorant or delibrately obtuse. I have nothing more to say on the matter. If you're not willing to think for yourself, or check this out for yourself, I can't help you.
I don't - nor does anyone else - pretend to understand the climate. Weathermen are always wrong. However, the fact that we've exceeded the temperatures predicted by the worst-case climate models from the past 10-15 years is telling.
And greenhouse gases are - from Wikipedia - "gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range". Carbon dioxide "absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared."
Thus, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. One of these two quotes is a property of a molecule, and the other is a definition. Which do you disagree with?
I think that global warming is a fact, based on the simple (to me) fact that the temperature of the earth has increased dramatically, and that nature doesn't run that fast. Climate change is cyclical - hence the ice-ages - but the change happens on a much longer time scale in nature. Thus, it is unlikely that nature is changing the planet.
Pollutant is a terrible word for CO2. Carbon dioxide can't be a pollutant because it's input for plants, and generally pollutants corrupt an ecosystem more directly - but it is certainly a greenhouse gas, so if it is the origin for dramatic global temperature increases that kill everything, it could be called a pollutant. That's a stretch, though.
I never understood why "skeptics" took issue with some of the least-controversial topics - "is CO2 a greenhouse gas" or "is the earth actually warming, or cooling". There's much better things to nit-pick - they're still wrong, but at least more complicated than "yes".
A reasonable position to take. It's refreshing to see some rational dialogue about the debate.
Common sense is only wrong infrequently, and is usually corrected with more knowledge. Take the fact that all objects fall at the same speed - this is not intuitive to, say, a child because they know that dropping a bowling ball and a feather have different results. But when you explain air resistance, it then becomes "common sense".
I'd be willing to have my mind changed by some evidence that my common sense is wrong.
Which brings me (and you) to your next point: the disembowelment of scientists who dare to question climate change. This is unlike any scientist I know, and I've been forced to come to the conclusion that this whole us-vs-them by pro-AGW scientists is a myth.
Scientists don't get through 4 years of high school, 4 years of college, and 4 years of grad school (for a PHD) without a strong commitment to learning. You just can't do it. Any scientist I know, or have ever heard of, would be happy to read a well-presented, rationally introduced paper - whatever their preconceived notions. If the paper is good, and the data is good, the scientist will be (uncomfortably) forced into accepting its veracity. In fact, this is what separates the scientist from the layperson - they may not like having their mind changed, but the average scientist can't stand the cognitive dissonance that comes from being shown that their belief is false.
So if any anti-AGW research was good, it would (fairly quickly) turn "respectable" scientists to the "other side". Academia is nothing if not a good ol' boy's club, so the news that well-respected Frank read a really good paper that changed his mind would spread like wildfire. If others found the paper good, the prevailing mood would change quite quickly.
This hasn't happened. You're right about the whole "good faith" comment, but fool me once and all that. If climatologists spent all their time listening to the skeptics, they wouldn't have any time to refine their models - or do much of anything. Speaking from experience, one can quickly become jaded while "debating" with someone who will never understand, nor attempt to understand, your position - yet will deny it with every fiber of their being.
Baloney. I want to use the fact that my phone is in fact a complete UNIX machine. Don't you dare tell me that this is unnecessary and as such must not be done. I love the fact that the iPhone has such a useful and intuitive GUI, but it's missing some stuff. Because it's actually so flexible, despite Apple's intentions, it can in fact do all that. Did you know that you can run a VNC server on the phone itself, so you can control the screen through any VNC client?
In any case, who do you think you are to be dictating tradeoffs? The iPhone is actually quite a hackable device, as evidenced by all the quality jailbroken programs that you just dismissed.
Ad homenims aside, you're absolutely unequivocally offensively wrong. AGW proponents believe, as a whole, that the earth is changing in drastic and human-caused ways. This also usually combines with the belief that we don't have the right to shit all over the earth because it's so damn easy.
Look. Done properly, we can significantly cut back emissions without killing people's quality of life. Turbines are effective, far more sunlight falls on the earth than we can ever use, etc. But why spend that little bit of time and money when we can just take another dump and hope it doesn't smell until we're dead?
You also forget that rising sea levels will flat-out destroy many people. Forget about 'objectively poorer', try needing to move, well, somewhere - but there's nowhere to go because you didn't have any money in the first place.
"Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized."
Now you're just wrong and a douchebag at the same time.
I can talk to people who have some legitimate (but imagined) problem with the science and try to explain what's going on. But you're a jackass, through and through. "Oh no, human economics and my bank account and Climategate" while forgetting that the world doesn't give two shits about this so-called debate that's festering across its surface.
Look. The world is warming. There is 35% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was in 1832. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is not open for discussion. Unless you have some compelling way of explaining where a fuckload of CO2 got into the air, it was caused by humans burning fossil fuels - which incidentally started around 1832. Hint: the earth doesn't work that fast.
Yeah, this will probably be modded troll and I don't care. And I'm well aware that this sounds like some "religion" that people have been going on about. But people like you make me physically sick to my stomach. Let's screw around with a real problem on our hands. Do you stop and jack off in a burning building?
It would take a lot to convince me otherwise. I'd need proof that humans were not, in fact, releasing a significant amount of greenhouse gases - and proof that this smaller amount is not enough to raise temperatures. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is not open for debate. We also know that there is 35% more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in 1832. It follows that with 30% more of a greenhouse gas, the earth will be warmer now than it was in 1832.
Since the earth doesn't do crazy drastic things like that, in the span of 150 years, and we know that starting in around 1832 we've been releasing crazy amounts of previously-sequestered CO2 into the air, it follows that it's our fault.
The only thing that could feasibly wrong is whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but we know it is. Or perhaps some drastic geological process has been happening without our knowledge for the past 150 years, but that's a big leap too.
I could be convinced otherwise, but only by a climate scientist doing credible research. And I highly doubt both scenarios. In short, I require significant implausible incontrovertible evidence, but it could theoretically happen.
Meanwhile, AGW-deniers don't change their tone in the face of piles of facts, except to say that those facts are all wrong. What would make them change their mind? More facts?
For what it's worth, most emergency services aren't standard pagers. Standard pagers broadcast via satellite or terrestrial towers. Emergency pagers receive broadcasts from the agency itself; there's no third party involved.
I'm in EMS. This is how it works for us, and every EMS/fire person I've ever spoken to - but it may not be universal.
I'm a filthily dirty person. Time to creep you out:
I haven't washed my hands after going to the bathroom for as long as I could remember (unless I actively shit on them... never happened). I don't use a tissue, just my sleeve. I haven't brushed my teeth in months. I have about 2-3 showers a week. Frequently, I'll reuse clothes. If some food falls on the floor, and the floor looks clean, in it goes. Wash my hands before eating, or after taking the subway? Never.
I haven't been sick (actually sick - not just feeling like shit for a day or so) in more than 8 years. I used to have athsma and pollen allergies - they've simply disappeared. My entire dorm had swine flu, I didn't even feel bad. I don't get cavities, even though my parents are cavity-prone.
In short, my immune system is constantly barraged. It's too damn busy to freak out about some pollen or peanuts. Yes, I should tone it back - and I am (having a girlfriend helps). But I won't be Purell-ing my hands all the time, and I probably won't even wash my hands after the toilet (though I am brushing my teeth - again, girlfriend). I'm just not that guy.
It would have to, wouldn't it? If you measure a falling ball, it will follow (1/2)gt^2 exactly. Parabolic motion, all those other equations, are perfect - unless you're going a hundred thousand km a second.
Just because a new theory was developed doesn't make the old ones (which are observably correct) wrong, just not complete. Otherwise, science would be contradicting the world.
Isn't science cool? IMHO that's how you know these forumlae are correct - they're so elegant, and work out the same way as the old ones for the things the old ones covered. This elegance is what makes math/science right, or at least probably right - you almost never see a messy equation for a elemental phenomenon.
The preceding comment is actually a virus. As is this.
OK, useful comment.
It's not actually new to have executable ASCII. See the famous EICAR test: X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*
It's entirely written in ASCII characters, but is also an executable.COM file which, by necessity, self-modifies in order to run the proper instructions (which contain 0x0, '\0' bytes so they're untypable)
If these researchers are able to do this, but with (almost) meaningful strings, that's pretty cool. Aren't Markov chains amazing?
It theoretically wasn't welfare, it was intended as an incentive. The idea was the money came with strings attached. It needed to be enforced to have any effect.
This has nothing to do with a paywall. This so-called debate has to do with whether Google can index Murdoch's sites without paying him money. Murdoch wants to change that so he can get cash.
See the NY Times which is all over Google and Google News, but requires (free) registration to view the articles. They could easily require a paid account to view the stories.
Personally, I think that would kill them as effectively, but that's not what this discussion is about.
I actively ignore Murdoch's results; I don't care what his mouthpieces have to say. But if I were an average websurfer, I wouldn't have any particular allegiance. In fact, I'd probably just click the first link in Google News - which is frequently Fox etc. If that disappears from the Google News page, most people wouldn't even notice and just keep going to the BBC, or CNN, or NY Times, or whatever is first.
Google is under threat here - in fact, their entire business model (do good search to get ad exposure) is under attack.
Murdoch wants to change the Internet to be more favorable to him. In order to do this, he needs laws. To get laws, he must need them, or appear to need them. So he pretends people stealing his content are a big problem. He paints Google as stealing his content by indexing it in order to use as a news source.
Murdoch knows he can stop Google indexing his site at any time. In fact, he (or his minions) already have robots.txt pointing Google to Google-friendly sitemaps. But he doesn't want to do that, because he doesn't get paid for taking that route.
No - Murdoch wants Google to use his content, and wants to charge them for that. He wants to force them to do that. That would hopefully (to Murdoch) force anybody excerpting his content to pay for it
Goldmine.
Google's whole business model is excerpting content, for the purposes of search.
Google should be proactive here, in order to protect their business model. Some possible actions:
* Exclude Murdoch proactively. His online offerings would disappear in 6 months' time. * Similarly, tell him to "put up or shut up" by giving him a public weeks' notice. Murdoch would have to fold because he needs Google much more than Google needs him. * Sue Murdoch for defamation/libel. He is explicitly accusing Google of a crime - if Google didn't commit this crime (they're legally well-protected), he will lose.
Which is very telling, as half of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report is making fun of Fox News.
In fact, the DS broke the story about Fox re-using the footage of the "tea parties" for the anti-gay "protest" a few weeks ago - forcing Fox to issue a formal retraction.
Web use is usually casual. A popular website (like a games site, or Slashdot) is likely not an important one, at least not in the "real-world" sense of the term. Does 4chan "matter"?
Meanwhile, governance is supposed to be taken seriously. Our system of government is a great idea, the problem is people don't take it seriously (research candidates themselves, participate with letters/phonecalls, donate). But it's almost the most serious thing we can do - even though, done properly, it doesn't take much effort.
In theory, at least for government, relevance should be popular. In practice, this is obviously no longer the case (if it was ever true).
I don't think so. NYTimes, BBC, CNN et. al. aren't stupid enough to pull what Murdoch is pulling here. So they'd still be there. That would only leave the crap papers out, which might indicate to people "Google doesn't index trash".
That is, if anybody was able to miss the fact that this is all Murdoch's doing. Personally, I'll be spreading the news far and wide (mostly because it's hilarious).
Murdoch needs Google whole orders of magnitude more than Google needs Murdoch. Murdoch's online offerings wouldn't last 6 months without Google.
My ass. If I have one of those maps covered in local businesses and I take yours off, you can't sue me. Google would laugh them out of court.
If Google were to stop dealing with the web entirely and start making buttscratchers, could people sue for (literally) the trillions of dollars it would cost them? I don't think so. Google has no obligation to them, or anybody but its shareholders (of which its founders are IIRC a majority).
You might not be joking - News Corp might very well sue - but the suit would absolutely fail.
That's completely disregarding that Google would only be complying with Murdoch's stated wishes.
I'm 18, so my brain is a bit more developed than a 14 year old - and perhaps less susceptible. I answered a firm "no" to each of the questions in that sidebar.
Nicotine is just about the hardest drug to kick - harder than heroin, or so I understand. But I haven't ever felt even the slightest shred of withdrawal symptoms. I went from my heaviest week ever (6 cigarettes) to nothing for two weeks, without even noticing.
I'm not diminishing his research - it's well done. I just think he may be overplaying it a little bit.
No. That's not the case. I smoke one cigarette maybe 3 times a week. I can (and have) gone weeks at a time without smoking, at this pace. I am NOT addicted, and I feel like shit if I smoke more than 2-3 times a day - so I won't become addicted. I'd become physically ill if I tried to smoke enough so that I could get addicted.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends how much of a service pack it is. XP->Vista made some pretty big kernel changes, enough to justify the version. Vista->7 really didn't change anything much, so it's like a service pack.
Isn't XP SP2/3 Windows 5.1?
Essentially, it depends how ambitious they are.
No. This is essentially an extension of the cookie.
The web has changed. I don't like a lot of the changes, but this is one of the good ones. Actually, most of HTML5 is a great idea. Would you rather rely on Quicktime and Flash to do everything in the standard? I sure don't.
Google Desktop saves indexes on their servers.
No it doesn't. Ever wondered what the gigabyte of index files on your drive is?
The fact that Google Desktop runs a (local) webserver that you access from a web browser doesn't mean it's sending any data across the internet.
There may be a feature to enable this, but it's not the default.
Embed that word file as part of a chart in a Powerpoint (including all sorts of images), and email that off.
Seriously. I've seen that happen - I was supposed to put up something that should have been a GIF, but it was given as a Powerpoint file... losers
You're being ignorant or delibrately obtuse. I have nothing more to say on the matter. If you're not willing to think for yourself, or check this out for yourself, I can't help you.
I don't - nor does anyone else - pretend to understand the climate. Weathermen are always wrong. However, the fact that we've exceeded the temperatures predicted by the worst-case climate models from the past 10-15 years is telling.
And greenhouse gases are - from Wikipedia - "gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range". Carbon dioxide "absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared."
Thus, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. One of these two quotes is a property of a molecule, and the other is a definition. Which do you disagree with?
I think that global warming is a fact, based on the simple (to me) fact that the temperature of the earth has increased dramatically, and that nature doesn't run that fast. Climate change is cyclical - hence the ice-ages - but the change happens on a much longer time scale in nature. Thus, it is unlikely that nature is changing the planet.
Pollutant is a terrible word for CO2. Carbon dioxide can't be a pollutant because it's input for plants, and generally pollutants corrupt an ecosystem more directly - but it is certainly a greenhouse gas, so if it is the origin for dramatic global temperature increases that kill everything, it could be called a pollutant. That's a stretch, though.
I never understood why "skeptics" took issue with some of the least-controversial topics - "is CO2 a greenhouse gas" or "is the earth actually warming, or cooling". There's much better things to nit-pick - they're still wrong, but at least more complicated than "yes".
A reasonable position to take. It's refreshing to see some rational dialogue about the debate.
Common sense is only wrong infrequently, and is usually corrected with more knowledge. Take the fact that all objects fall at the same speed - this is not intuitive to, say, a child because they know that dropping a bowling ball and a feather have different results. But when you explain air resistance, it then becomes "common sense".
I'd be willing to have my mind changed by some evidence that my common sense is wrong.
Which brings me (and you) to your next point: the disembowelment of scientists who dare to question climate change. This is unlike any scientist I know, and I've been forced to come to the conclusion that this whole us-vs-them by pro-AGW scientists is a myth.
Scientists don't get through 4 years of high school, 4 years of college, and 4 years of grad school (for a PHD) without a strong commitment to learning. You just can't do it. Any scientist I know, or have ever heard of, would be happy to read a well-presented, rationally introduced paper - whatever their preconceived notions. If the paper is good, and the data is good, the scientist will be (uncomfortably) forced into accepting its veracity. In fact, this is what separates the scientist from the layperson - they may not like having their mind changed, but the average scientist can't stand the cognitive dissonance that comes from being shown that their belief is false.
So if any anti-AGW research was good, it would (fairly quickly) turn "respectable" scientists to the "other side". Academia is nothing if not a good ol' boy's club, so the news that well-respected Frank read a really good paper that changed his mind would spread like wildfire. If others found the paper good, the prevailing mood would change quite quickly.
This hasn't happened. You're right about the whole "good faith" comment, but fool me once and all that. If climatologists spent all their time listening to the skeptics, they wouldn't have any time to refine their models - or do much of anything. Speaking from experience, one can quickly become jaded while "debating" with someone who will never understand, nor attempt to understand, your position - yet will deny it with every fiber of their being.
Baloney. I want to use the fact that my phone is in fact a complete UNIX machine. Don't you dare tell me that this is unnecessary and as such must not be done. I love the fact that the iPhone has such a useful and intuitive GUI, but it's missing some stuff. Because it's actually so flexible, despite Apple's intentions, it can in fact do all that. Did you know that you can run a VNC server on the phone itself, so you can control the screen through any VNC client?
In any case, who do you think you are to be dictating tradeoffs? The iPhone is actually quite a hackable device, as evidenced by all the quality jailbroken programs that you just dismissed.
Kiss the fattest part of my ass.
Ad homenims aside, you're absolutely unequivocally offensively wrong. AGW proponents believe, as a whole, that the earth is changing in drastic and human-caused ways. This also usually combines with the belief that we don't have the right to shit all over the earth because it's so damn easy.
Look. Done properly, we can significantly cut back emissions without killing people's quality of life. Turbines are effective, far more sunlight falls on the earth than we can ever use, etc. But why spend that little bit of time and money when we can just take another dump and hope it doesn't smell until we're dead?
You also forget that rising sea levels will flat-out destroy many people. Forget about 'objectively poorer', try needing to move, well, somewhere - but there's nowhere to go because you didn't have any money in the first place.
"Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized."
Now you're just wrong and a douchebag at the same time.
I can talk to people who have some legitimate (but imagined) problem with the science and try to explain what's going on. But you're a jackass, through and through. "Oh no, human economics and my bank account and Climategate" while forgetting that the world doesn't give two shits about this so-called debate that's festering across its surface.
Look. The world is warming. There is 35% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was in 1832. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is not open for discussion. Unless you have some compelling way of explaining where a fuckload of CO2 got into the air, it was caused by humans burning fossil fuels - which incidentally started around 1832. Hint: the earth doesn't work that fast.
Yeah, this will probably be modded troll and I don't care. And I'm well aware that this sounds like some "religion" that people have been going on about. But people like you make me physically sick to my stomach. Let's screw around with a real problem on our hands. Do you stop and jack off in a burning building?
It would take a lot to convince me otherwise. I'd need proof that humans were not, in fact, releasing a significant amount of greenhouse gases - and proof that this smaller amount is not enough to raise temperatures. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is not open for debate. We also know that there is 35% more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in 1832. It follows that with 30% more of a greenhouse gas, the earth will be warmer now than it was in 1832.
Since the earth doesn't do crazy drastic things like that, in the span of 150 years, and we know that starting in around 1832 we've been releasing crazy amounts of previously-sequestered CO2 into the air, it follows that it's our fault.
The only thing that could feasibly wrong is whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but we know it is. Or perhaps some drastic geological process has been happening without our knowledge for the past 150 years, but that's a big leap too.
I could be convinced otherwise, but only by a climate scientist doing credible research. And I highly doubt both scenarios. In short, I require significant implausible incontrovertible evidence, but it could theoretically happen.
Meanwhile, AGW-deniers don't change their tone in the face of piles of facts, except to say that those facts are all wrong. What would make them change their mind? More facts?
For what it's worth, most emergency services aren't standard pagers. Standard pagers broadcast via satellite or terrestrial towers. Emergency pagers receive broadcasts from the agency itself; there's no third party involved.
I'm in EMS. This is how it works for us, and every EMS/fire person I've ever spoken to - but it may not be universal.
I'm a filthily dirty person. Time to creep you out:
I haven't washed my hands after going to the bathroom for as long as I could remember (unless I actively shit on them... never happened). I don't use a tissue, just my sleeve. I haven't brushed my teeth in months. I have about 2-3 showers a week. Frequently, I'll reuse clothes. If some food falls on the floor, and the floor looks clean, in it goes. Wash my hands before eating, or after taking the subway? Never.
I haven't been sick (actually sick - not just feeling like shit for a day or so) in more than 8 years. I used to have athsma and pollen allergies - they've simply disappeared. My entire dorm had swine flu, I didn't even feel bad. I don't get cavities, even though my parents are cavity-prone.
In short, my immune system is constantly barraged. It's too damn busy to freak out about some pollen or peanuts. Yes, I should tone it back - and I am (having a girlfriend helps). But I won't be Purell-ing my hands all the time, and I probably won't even wash my hands after the toilet (though I am brushing my teeth - again, girlfriend). I'm just not that guy.
It would have to, wouldn't it? If you measure a falling ball, it will follow (1/2)gt^2 exactly. Parabolic motion, all those other equations, are perfect - unless you're going a hundred thousand km a second.
Just because a new theory was developed doesn't make the old ones (which are observably correct) wrong, just not complete. Otherwise, science would be contradicting the world.
Isn't science cool? IMHO that's how you know these forumlae are correct - they're so elegant, and work out the same way as the old ones for the things the old ones covered. This elegance is what makes math/science right, or at least probably right - you almost never see a messy equation for a elemental phenomenon.
But then again, I'm a platonist...
The preceding comment is actually a virus. As is this.
OK, useful comment.
It's not actually new to have executable ASCII. See the famous EICAR test:
X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*
It's entirely written in ASCII characters, but is also an executable .COM file which, by necessity, self-modifies in order to run the proper instructions (which contain 0x0, '\0' bytes so they're untypable)
If these researchers are able to do this, but with (almost) meaningful strings, that's pretty cool. Aren't Markov chains amazing?
You have
a virus
Didn't you know?
You shouldn't be
running Windows
Burma Shave
It theoretically wasn't welfare, it was intended as an incentive. The idea was the money came with strings attached. It needed to be enforced to have any effect.
When it wasn't enforced, it became welfare.
This has nothing to do with a paywall. This so-called debate has to do with whether Google can index Murdoch's sites without paying him money. Murdoch wants to change that so he can get cash.
See the NY Times which is all over Google and Google News, but requires (free) registration to view the articles. They could easily require a paid account to view the stories.
Personally, I think that would kill them as effectively, but that's not what this discussion is about.
I actively ignore Murdoch's results; I don't care what his mouthpieces have to say. But if I were an average websurfer, I wouldn't have any particular allegiance. In fact, I'd probably just click the first link in Google News - which is frequently Fox etc. If that disappears from the Google News page, most people wouldn't even notice and just keep going to the BBC, or CNN, or NY Times, or whatever is first.
Google is under threat here - in fact, their entire business model (do good search to get ad exposure) is under attack.
Murdoch wants to change the Internet to be more favorable to him. In order to do this, he needs laws. To get laws, he must need them, or appear to need them. So he pretends people stealing his content are a big problem. He paints Google as stealing his content by indexing it in order to use as a news source.
Murdoch knows he can stop Google indexing his site at any time. In fact, he (or his minions) already have robots.txt pointing Google to Google-friendly sitemaps. But he doesn't want to do that, because he doesn't get paid for taking that route.
No - Murdoch wants Google to use his content, and wants to charge them for that. He wants to force them to do that. That would hopefully (to Murdoch) force anybody excerpting his content to pay for it
Goldmine.
Google's whole business model is excerpting content, for the purposes of search.
Google should be proactive here, in order to protect their business model. Some possible actions:
* Exclude Murdoch proactively. His online offerings would disappear in 6 months' time.
* Similarly, tell him to "put up or shut up" by giving him a public weeks' notice. Murdoch would have to fold because he needs Google much more than Google needs him.
* Sue Murdoch for defamation/libel. He is explicitly accusing Google of a crime - if Google didn't commit this crime (they're legally well-protected), he will lose.
Which is very telling, as half of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report is making fun of Fox News.
In fact, the DS broke the story about Fox re-using the footage of the "tea parties" for the anti-gay "protest" a few weeks ago - forcing Fox to issue a formal retraction.
My ass. If you ever watch the Daily Show or the Colbert Report, they frequently make fun of the Democrat's inability to do fuck-all in Congress.
The republicans are funnier because they're stupider. But the democrats take nearly as much of a beating.
Web use is usually casual. A popular website (like a games site, or Slashdot) is likely not an important one, at least not in the "real-world" sense of the term. Does 4chan "matter"?
Meanwhile, governance is supposed to be taken seriously. Our system of government is a great idea, the problem is people don't take it seriously (research candidates themselves, participate with letters/phonecalls, donate). But it's almost the most serious thing we can do - even though, done properly, it doesn't take much effort.
In theory, at least for government, relevance should be popular. In practice, this is obviously no longer the case (if it was ever true).
I don't think so. NYTimes, BBC, CNN et. al. aren't stupid enough to pull what Murdoch is pulling here. So they'd still be there. That would only leave the crap papers out, which might indicate to people "Google doesn't index trash".
That is, if anybody was able to miss the fact that this is all Murdoch's doing. Personally, I'll be spreading the news far and wide (mostly because it's hilarious).
Murdoch needs Google whole orders of magnitude more than Google needs Murdoch. Murdoch's online offerings wouldn't last 6 months without Google.
My ass. If I have one of those maps covered in local businesses and I take yours off, you can't sue me. Google would laugh them out of court.
If Google were to stop dealing with the web entirely and start making buttscratchers, could people sue for (literally) the trillions of dollars it would cost them? I don't think so. Google has no obligation to them, or anybody but its shareholders (of which its founders are IIRC a majority).
You might not be joking - News Corp might very well sue - but the suit would absolutely fail.
That's completely disregarding that Google would only be complying with Murdoch's stated wishes.
You're right; that's a fascinating link.
I'm 18, so my brain is a bit more developed than a 14 year old - and perhaps less susceptible. I answered a firm "no" to each of the questions in that sidebar.
Nicotine is just about the hardest drug to kick - harder than heroin, or so I understand. But I haven't ever felt even the slightest shred of withdrawal symptoms. I went from my heaviest week ever (6 cigarettes) to nothing for two weeks, without even noticing.
I'm not diminishing his research - it's well done. I just think he may be overplaying it a little bit.
No. That's not the case. I smoke one cigarette maybe 3 times a week. I can (and have) gone weeks at a time without smoking, at this pace. I am NOT addicted, and I feel like shit if I smoke more than 2-3 times a day - so I won't become addicted. I'd become physically ill if I tried to smoke enough so that I could get addicted.