No, it's "naivette" that prompts worship for a corporation.
It's "science" and "reality" that strikes down ID as any kind of scientific theory.
Thanks for playing.
I would think that you not being able to see the original poster's point suggests a huge deficit in imagination... however, I know that can't possibly be true because you managed to invent "racist glasses" for me whole-cloth.
Well, I'm talking about right now. And I'd rather pay $35 extra to be able to transfer files to almost any other machine. USB drives will work anywhere, MDs would need another drive installed which would severely limit compatibility (unless they put out an MD USB drive, which would be a lot bulkier than a flash keychain).
Why bother with that when you can just use a keychain flash drive with much higher capacity, better portability, and pretty much universal compatability?
You can reply to the main posting by clicking on the button cleverly marked "Reply".
Slashdot knew that the best way to confurse new users who wanted to post a reply would be to create a button with the word "reply" on it. So far, so good.
When you manage to get people to use your company name as the verb for doing what your main product does, you won.
While it's certainly a sign of success to get your company or brand's name to become a household word or a verb for your product or service, it's actually Bad News in the Trademark Department.
Many successful companies, such as the two examples you gave -- Xerox and Google -- as well as other more famous examples such as Kleenex and Coke, have found themselves at the receiving end of "trademark dilution". That is to say that their brands are so synonymous with their particular type of product that they've slipped into the public domain lexicon.
For example, in many parts of the South, a carbonated beverage is called "coke". It doesn't matter if you're drinking Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Root Beer, Sprite, or Mountain Dew. It's all "coke". Similarly, many people blow their nose with "kleenex", even if it says "Puffs" or even "Store-Name Generic Brand" right on the side of the box.
The GP may be referring to the practice of gender verification in the Olympics. For about three decades prior to the Sydney Olympics in 2000, the Olympic Committee did gender verification tests primarily to ensure that women competing as women were actually women.
The problem with that is that there is a condition called Androgen Resistance, which blocks testosterone... so anatomically and physiologically, a person would be a female, although genetically, they would have the XY chromosomes, categorizing them as males.
Superwomen? No... just women who were genetically men.
Do you think I could get in trouble for all the guys in Nigeria who want me to help them move money offshore into an American bank account to help them get around government regulations? I didn't give them my name, but they got it from a reliable source who told them I was very trustworthy.
I don't think it's paranoia -- Google makes its money from the fact that they are able to expertly target advertising to their users, and they make no bones about the fact that they target that advertisement to you based on (in the case of GMail), the content of your emails. Granted, it's a bot and not some 21-year-old intern skimming through your response emails from the Foot Fetish website, but they still base the ads they send you on your email content.
Any email provider can put ad banners in your mail. The trick is to put ad banners in your mail that you would actually click on. Google can determine what advertisements you will click on by seeing the topics that frequently come up in your emails. If my fiance sends emails back and forth to her friends about looking forward to a trip to Aruba, and Google puts a bunch of ads for Aruba activities and hotels on the same page, she will click on them. If those same pages just had advertisements about the newest vacuum cleaner or a new release movie, she probably won't click on them.
This is one reason why Google gives you so much storage space and encourages you to simply archive emails rather than delete them -- it helps them to index you for advertising purposes.
Holding onto that information for eternity might have the added benefit of giving you an avenue for data recovery if you accidentally delete something -- but that's only a byproduct of Google making a profit, not the primary intention.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know if this situation has ever gone to court before. But I would think that an argument could be made that the government cannot force you to decrypt a document based exactly on the premise you provided: the Fifth Amendment protects you from self-incrimination.
However... an analogy I can think of is if you had an incriminating piece of evidence (or the police think you do) in a safe. Can law enforcement force you to open it? I don't believe they can. But they probably have other ways to get inside it.
With encryption, it depends on what you're using. If you're just password protecting a Word Document with the off-the-shelf Microsoft Office encryption, the government could get that information without your cooperation.
But say you're using this type of encryption. The government's options would be limited to trying to obtain the information by a different means (i.e., going to the recipient of the data you sent).
Either that, or ignoring the Constitution. Nah, the government would never do that.
Google warns that "delete forever" does not mean that the message is necessarily gone. Their offline backup servers may contain copies of your messages in perpetuity. Can you think of why this might be?
Because I can. Like any responsible data company, they don't want you to lose important data... so they back it up.
Google isn't being exactly 100% altruistic. They are a corporation, so if you want to determine their motivation for any particular thing, look at what motivates all corporations: money.
They keep a massive amount of data, and not particularly because they are concerned about your data recovery needs, but because the massive amount of data that they can collect and associate with you allows them to better design targeted marketing (ads) directly to you.
Based on the emails that you send and the emails that you receive, they can determine if you are more likely to be interested in this service or that product. They can shoot advertisements at you like a sniper rifle, as opposed to birdshot.
Keeping all that data indefinitely allows them to constantly index and profile you for advertising purposes. It allows them to make money.
On the flip side of that, people are more likely to trust Google with that profitable data if Google fights tooth and nail to ensure the privacy of users, so barring severe punishment from the government, it makes sense for Google to safeguard users' data from the prying eyes of Big Brother.
If these people are so damned impoverished, why don't they get off their lazy asses and go to the ATM machine and withdraw $200 in twenty dollar bills?
And these children are starving to death? Here's an idea for them: Go to McDonalds and order a Double Quarater Pounder Extra Value Meal. That's, like, a half pound of meat.
And as for these kids needing computers, I think it's high time they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, went to newegg, and built a decent computer for around $500. Jesus, how else are they going to manage their stock portfolios?
If a news organization is composed of 99 left-wing loony-toons moonbat latte-sipping Prius-driving liberal reporters and 1 right-wing greasy greedy fat-cat warmongering cousin-marrying Republican publisher/owner/broadcaster who controls the budget and the paychecks, that organization is going to tilt right.
Although that's true, say you're out somewhere and you hear on the news that the president is addressing the nation tonight -- Tivo will pick up him blathering but it will push Lost back a half hour because Tivo doesn't cover unscheduled changes in the TV lineup (impromptu presidential addresses, press conferences, late-running NCAA games, etc. You can reschedule Tivo yourself with any Internet connection (this Verizon thing is a rip-off) provided you have your Tivo on your home network.
I would respond to what you have said, but since you identify so personally with your posts that using an adjective about something you write is the equivalent of saying that thing about you, I have decided to censor that content from you as it may be detrimental to your morale.
It's pretty unimaginative to assume that there is no other reason for censorship in the military besides anti-Americanism, anti-Marine, anti-troop, anti-whatever. I can think of several others, right off the top of my head: brainwashing, hiding truth, political indoctrination, et cetera. China doesn't block pro-democracy websites because they are anti-China, they block them because they are pro-democracy. They extol the virtues of a different way of doing business.
If you went to or worked at a public school which allowed users to read democraticunderground.com, dailykos.com, bartcop.com, Air America, Randi Rhodes, Arianna Huffington, and MoveOn, but which denied access to freerepublic.com, redstate.org, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, et cetera, I have a feeling you would get pissed off. And, if not you, then your brothers-in-arms. And no amount of me saying, "But Republicans are anti-education" would change anyone's mind.
Several people have claimed that the partisan allowing/blocking of sites is a real phenomenon in the military as a whole, not just in Iraq. Now, since I am not in the military, I cannot confirm whether this is the case or not, and since you argue that my stance is irrelevant because there is no proof that this is happening, consider this argument hypothetical.
Since you have made a statement to this effect, I will assume that your position is that this type of censorship is not occuring. Also, since you have made other statements to this effect, I will assume that your position is that IF this censorship WERE occuring, then it is still justifiable in your opinion. If I am incorrect in either of those assumptions, please correct me. However, if I am correct in both assumptions, please tell me if you think it is also acceptable for other institutions to censor out right-wing materials.
Lastly, please provide ONE example of me calling you a name. Thanks.
Most places would even censor site that are detrimental to their business.
Let us pretend that you worked for a Company called Kaiser. If there was a prevalent website called ihatekaiser.net that was very inflammatory towards kaiser and its business then kaiser would probably shut it off from internal employees to access and diminish their morale.
That is somewhat comparable but on the extreme end and direct hatred instead of indirect such as political views.
I don't know if your post is based on the idiotic, incorrect premise that "liberal" = "anti-Marines"...
Or if it's based on the idiotic, incorrect premise that "liberal" = "anti-troops"...
Or even if it's based on the idiotic, incorrect premise that "liberal" = "anti-American"...
The only thing I'm able to confirm at present is that your post is based on a premise which is both incorrect and idiotic.
The political censoring is the main thrust of the argument/controversy, regardless of the drunken ramblings of Wonkette. Not only is that not "debunked", as you claim, but it is pervasive not just on the Internet but also in other areas, such as AFRTS (Armed Forces Ratio & Television Service).
I'll assume that you had some sort of point in some other dimension that none of us inhabit. The point is not that somebody's Hotmail account was blocked, it was that Marines are allowed to look at right-wing sites but forbidden from looking at left-wing sites, showing a clear political bias in the way these sites are filtered. If all were forbidden or all were allowed, the problem wouldn't exist.
What prompted you to go off about boyfriends emailing supply line routes to their al Qaeda girlfriends, I can't say.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's "naivette" that prompts worship for a corporation. It's "science" and "reality" that strikes down ID as any kind of scientific theory. Thanks for playing.
I would think that you not being able to see the original poster's point suggests a huge deficit in imagination... however, I know that can't possibly be true because you managed to invent "racist glasses" for me whole-cloth.
Well, I'm talking about right now. And I'd rather pay $35 extra to be able to transfer files to almost any other machine. USB drives will work anywhere, MDs would need another drive installed which would severely limit compatibility (unless they put out an MD USB drive, which would be a lot bulkier than a flash keychain).
Why bother with that when you can just use a keychain flash drive with much higher capacity, better portability, and pretty much universal compatability?
Not true. He also compared it to terrorism.
You made me laugh so hard strawberry milk squirted out my nose. Oh, and I was laughing AT you, not WITH you.
You can reply to the main posting by clicking on the button cleverly marked "Reply". Slashdot knew that the best way to confurse new users who wanted to post a reply would be to create a button with the word "reply" on it. So far, so good.
When you manage to get people to use your company name as the verb for doing what your main product does, you won.
While it's certainly a sign of success to get your company or brand's name to become a household word or a verb for your product or service, it's actually Bad News in the Trademark Department.
Many successful companies, such as the two examples you gave -- Xerox and Google -- as well as other more famous examples such as Kleenex and Coke, have found themselves at the receiving end of "trademark dilution". That is to say that their brands are so synonymous with their particular type of product that they've slipped into the public domain lexicon.
For example, in many parts of the South, a carbonated beverage is called "coke". It doesn't matter if you're drinking Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Root Beer, Sprite, or Mountain Dew. It's all "coke". Similarly, many people blow their nose with "kleenex", even if it says "Puffs" or even "Store-Name Generic Brand" right on the side of the box.
You can read more here.
The GP may be referring to the practice of gender verification in the Olympics. For about three decades prior to the Sydney Olympics in 2000, the Olympic Committee did gender verification tests primarily to ensure that women competing as women were actually women.
The problem with that is that there is a condition called Androgen Resistance, which blocks testosterone... so anatomically and physiologically, a person would be a female, although genetically, they would have the XY chromosomes, categorizing them as males.
Superwomen? No... just women who were genetically men.
Do you think I could get in trouble for all the guys in Nigeria who want me to help them move money offshore into an American bank account to help them get around government regulations? I didn't give them my name, but they got it from a reliable source who told them I was very trustworthy.
I don't think it's paranoia -- Google makes its money from the fact that they are able to expertly target advertising to their users, and they make no bones about the fact that they target that advertisement to you based on (in the case of GMail), the content of your emails. Granted, it's a bot and not some 21-year-old intern skimming through your response emails from the Foot Fetish website, but they still base the ads they send you on your email content.
Any email provider can put ad banners in your mail. The trick is to put ad banners in your mail that you would actually click on. Google can determine what advertisements you will click on by seeing the topics that frequently come up in your emails. If my fiance sends emails back and forth to her friends about looking forward to a trip to Aruba, and Google puts a bunch of ads for Aruba activities and hotels on the same page, she will click on them. If those same pages just had advertisements about the newest vacuum cleaner or a new release movie, she probably won't click on them.
This is one reason why Google gives you so much storage space and encourages you to simply archive emails rather than delete them -- it helps them to index you for advertising purposes.
Holding onto that information for eternity might have the added benefit of giving you an avenue for data recovery if you accidentally delete something -- but that's only a byproduct of Google making a profit, not the primary intention.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know if this situation has ever gone to court before. But I would think that an argument could be made that the government cannot force you to decrypt a document based exactly on the premise you provided: the Fifth Amendment protects you from self-incrimination.
However... an analogy I can think of is if you had an incriminating piece of evidence (or the police think you do) in a safe. Can law enforcement force you to open it? I don't believe they can. But they probably have other ways to get inside it.
With encryption, it depends on what you're using. If you're just password protecting a Word Document with the off-the-shelf Microsoft Office encryption, the government could get that information without your cooperation.
But say you're using this type of encryption. The government's options would be limited to trying to obtain the information by a different means (i.e., going to the recipient of the data you sent).
Either that, or ignoring the Constitution. Nah, the government would never do that.
Google warns that "delete forever" does not mean that the message is necessarily gone. Their offline backup servers may contain copies of your messages in perpetuity. Can you think of why this might be?
Because I can. Like any responsible data company, they don't want you to lose important data... so they back it up.
Google isn't being exactly 100% altruistic. They are a corporation, so if you want to determine their motivation for any particular thing, look at what motivates all corporations: money.
They keep a massive amount of data, and not particularly because they are concerned about your data recovery needs, but because the massive amount of data that they can collect and associate with you allows them to better design targeted marketing (ads) directly to you.
Based on the emails that you send and the emails that you receive, they can determine if you are more likely to be interested in this service or that product. They can shoot advertisements at you like a sniper rifle, as opposed to birdshot.
Keeping all that data indefinitely allows them to constantly index and profile you for advertising purposes. It allows them to make money.
On the flip side of that, people are more likely to trust Google with that profitable data if Google fights tooth and nail to ensure the privacy of users, so barring severe punishment from the government, it makes sense for Google to safeguard users' data from the prying eyes of Big Brother.
If these people are so damned impoverished, why don't they get off their lazy asses and go to the ATM machine and withdraw $200 in twenty dollar bills? And these children are starving to death? Here's an idea for them: Go to McDonalds and order a Double Quarater Pounder Extra Value Meal. That's, like, a half pound of meat. And as for these kids needing computers, I think it's high time they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, went to newegg, and built a decent computer for around $500. Jesus, how else are they going to manage their stock portfolios?
If a news organization is composed of 99 left-wing loony-toons moonbat latte-sipping Prius-driving liberal reporters and 1 right-wing greasy greedy fat-cat warmongering cousin-marrying Republican publisher/owner/broadcaster who controls the budget and the paychecks, that organization is going to tilt right.
Maybe THAT'S what's keeping the temperatures so high!
If you think any company can afford to give private offices to anybody but it's most important employees, you're deluding yourself.
If you think that the people who occupy those offices are the most important employees, YOU are deluding YOURSELF.
I will.
Ugly people, stop having so many ugly kids! Please ensure that the adult ugly population and the child ugly population does not exceed a 1:1 ratio.
Although that's true, say you're out somewhere and you hear on the news that the president is addressing the nation tonight -- Tivo will pick up him blathering but it will push Lost back a half hour because Tivo doesn't cover unscheduled changes in the TV lineup (impromptu presidential addresses, press conferences, late-running NCAA games, etc. You can reschedule Tivo yourself with any Internet connection (this Verizon thing is a rip-off) provided you have your Tivo on your home network.
I would respond to what you have said, but since you identify so personally with your posts that using an adjective about something you write is the equivalent of saying that thing about you, I have decided to censor that content from you as it may be detrimental to your morale.
It's pretty unimaginative to assume that there is no other reason for censorship in the military besides anti-Americanism, anti-Marine, anti-troop, anti-whatever. I can think of several others, right off the top of my head: brainwashing, hiding truth, political indoctrination, et cetera. China doesn't block pro-democracy websites because they are anti-China, they block them because they are pro-democracy. They extol the virtues of a different way of doing business.
If you went to or worked at a public school which allowed users to read democraticunderground.com, dailykos.com, bartcop.com, Air America, Randi Rhodes, Arianna Huffington, and MoveOn, but which denied access to freerepublic.com, redstate.org, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, et cetera, I have a feeling you would get pissed off. And, if not you, then your brothers-in-arms. And no amount of me saying, "But Republicans are anti-education" would change anyone's mind.
Several people have claimed that the partisan allowing/blocking of sites is a real phenomenon in the military as a whole, not just in Iraq. Now, since I am not in the military, I cannot confirm whether this is the case or not, and since you argue that my stance is irrelevant because there is no proof that this is happening, consider this argument hypothetical.
Since you have made a statement to this effect, I will assume that your position is that this type of censorship is not occuring. Also, since you have made other statements to this effect, I will assume that your position is that IF this censorship WERE occuring, then it is still justifiable in your opinion. If I am incorrect in either of those assumptions, please correct me. However, if I am correct in both assumptions, please tell me if you think it is also acceptable for other institutions to censor out right-wing materials.
Lastly, please provide ONE example of me calling you a name. Thanks.
I was going to say the exact same thing, except I was probably going to be a total sarcastic asshole about it.
Most places would even censor site that are detrimental to their business.
Let us pretend that you worked for a Company called Kaiser. If there was a prevalent website called ihatekaiser.net that was very inflammatory towards kaiser and its business then kaiser would probably shut it off from internal employees to access and diminish their morale.
That is somewhat comparable but on the extreme end and direct hatred instead of indirect such as political views.
I don't know if your post is based on the idiotic, incorrect premise that "liberal" = "anti-Marines"...
Or if it's based on the idiotic, incorrect premise that "liberal" = "anti-troops"...
Or even if it's based on the idiotic, incorrect premise that "liberal" = "anti-American"...
The only thing I'm able to confirm at present is that your post is based on a premise which is both incorrect and idiotic.
The political censoring is the main thrust of the argument/controversy, regardless of the drunken ramblings of Wonkette. Not only is that not "debunked", as you claim, but it is pervasive not just on the Internet but also in other areas, such as AFRTS (Armed Forces Ratio & Television Service).
I'll assume that you had some sort of point in some other dimension that none of us inhabit. The point is not that somebody's Hotmail account was blocked, it was that Marines are allowed to look at right-wing sites but forbidden from looking at left-wing sites, showing a clear political bias in the way these sites are filtered. If all were forbidden or all were allowed, the problem wouldn't exist.
What prompted you to go off about boyfriends emailing supply line routes to their al Qaeda girlfriends, I can't say.