"5.5 Unless you have been specifically permitted to do so in a separate agreement with Google, you agree that you will not reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, trade or resell the Services for any purpose. "
I'm not sure if 'search results' , are considered a service though .
OK. I'll give you the same response that I give to every other missionary, tailored to your particular ism.
Show me how you prove the existence of God , and i'll use your method:-)
Really, the GP is not a missionary : he just made a fair statement that while with religion , you can choose to believe or not believe , science just deals with the facts ( it doesn't matter whether your believe in it or not ).
Offcourse , there is a certain 'belief' involved in science , do to our own limitations : we see as a fact that which we can currently prove as a fact . That may not necessarily be true though , as we might not yet have the full understanding yet.
However , the main difference is that in science, if evidence is found that contradicts our current view on thing , we correct our view on it. In religion , if evidence is found that contradicts the religious teaching , it will simply be discarded as heretical.
I don't this has much to do with genetics , but more to do with the religious teachings on the own.
For example , many religions forbid the use of contraception , because it's 'against the will of god' . So very religious people will automatically have more childeren that way.
Also, religious people will raise their children with that religion.Religions are made in such a way that people are 'brainwashed' to believe , from very young age.
But how is this news ? : religions have been doing this for ages , as it is the easiest way to increase your group of followers.
The question is, was his choice of target influenced by teabaggers, conservatives, and right wing pundits' inflammatory, violent anti-government rhetoric?
And how would that be relevant ?
A nutjob like that would find any reason to shoot someone. Any rhetoric would be useful as an excuse.
Are you are implying that 'some things should not be said' , because it can trigger nutjobs to do bad things ?
The funny thing is , that even if the cables themselves contain nothing the governments don't want us to know , the reaction of the government clearly shows they have something to hide.
That's the power behind the encrypted file . I'm not even sure it actually contains something , but the governments fear it might contain something they want to hide . That is why they fight it so badly.
So regardless of the content , it shows us that the government does have something it wants to hide from it's people , and exactly what they are capable of in order to keep it hidden.
The problems is those news outlets might be tightly connected to the government in some way , so they might all decide to do nothing with it , to protect themselves ( given the treatment wikileaks is getting , you can't exactly blame them )
You don't get to posit random scenarios and claim that they somehow disprove what I said. There's no link between Russian involvement in WW2 and German research into atomic weapons.
That's just it . I don't claim to disprove what you said. My claim is there is no way to be certain of that.
Just as there 'being no link between WW2 and German research into atomic weapons' , is only true because that is the history we know. As i said , there is no telling what would happen if one thing changed.
So your view on what would have happened , is as valid as any.
Sorry , but that is hard to say. Change one factor in history and everything might change.
Remember that Germany was also working on an atom bomb. I also recall that Einstein played a certain role in it ( by writing a letter or at least by signing a letter , informing the president that Germany was building an atom bomb ) , which lead to the US deciding to build the bomb sooner.
What do you think would have happened if Einstein didn't make it the US ? What would have happend if Germany was able to create the atom bomb , and use it before the US could ?
If you look at history , you will see that many events are based on coincidence. Don't just take anything for granted.
You wouldn't consider it acceptable if your company just fired you and a lot of other people , just because a machine can do your job faster and cheaper.
It would be acceptable if they slowly replaced people with machines ( for example when they retire )
Everyone has that power , if you let them. You seem to think they want to 'fuck up your day' , as if they do it for pleasure.
In reality, they are only trying to do their jobs, which is hard enough because they are figuratively slammed between two opposing parties : on one side the passengers who do not want to be disturbed , and on the other side the actual terrorist threat . Couple that with the fact that they have to work with inadequate security systems , it doesn't exactly make their lives easier.
Offcourse , it's easier to complain than to actually do something about it , isn't it ?
I know some people who are in airport security , and i can guarantee you , they are only doing their jobs. And they have to follow very strict rules , so it's not like they have any 'power' to abuse .
And yes , they are only human , and they make mistakes.
Everyone makes mistakes , and the beauty of human beings is that we can learn from other people's mistakes.
Yes , but how do you ensure that it stays that way ?
The only way to ensure it , is by the government enforcing it ( net neutrality legislation ) However , by doing so , you take power away from companies ( who previously did whatever they wanted ) , but you give it to the government ( who now have the power to regulate what happens on the internet ).
The problem is that neither groups actually want true 'net neutrality ' : the companies want a model that makes them more profit , and the government wants control over the internet ( like they have with other media ) .
That's the problem , isn't it : what exactly can be understood by "Net Neutrality " .
The reality is simple : each side will have it mean exactly what they want it to mean.
No regulation is bad because companies can take advantage of that , which can be bad for the customer To much regulation is also bad , because governments can take advantage of this , which is also bad for the customer
In a perfect world , the control shouldn't go to the companies nor the goverments , but to the customer .
Since we don't live in a perfect world , the only logical option is a balance somewhere in between , which we ( the customer ) can control by thinking before we vote and buy.
Slashdot Mirror
"5.5 Unless you have been specifically permitted to do so in a separate agreement with Google, you agree that you will not reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, trade or resell the Services for any purpose. "
I'm not sure if 'search results' , are considered a service though .
HTTPS doesn't run on port 80 , but on port 443 by default .
Ahh. An atheist missionary.
OK. I'll give you the same response that I give to every other missionary, tailored to your particular ism.
Show me how you prove the existence of God , and i'll use your method :-)
Really, the GP is not a missionary : he just made a fair statement that while with religion , you can choose to believe or not believe , science just deals with the facts ( it doesn't matter whether your believe in it or not ).
Offcourse , there is a certain 'belief' involved in science , do to our own limitations : we see as a fact that which we can currently prove as a fact .
That may not necessarily be true though , as we might not yet have the full understanding yet.
However , the main difference is that in science, if evidence is found that contradicts our current view on thing , we correct our view on it.
In religion , if evidence is found that contradicts the religious teaching , it will simply be discarded as heretical.
I don't this has much to do with genetics , but more to do with the religious teachings on the own.
For example , many religions forbid the use of contraception , because it's 'against the will of god' . So very religious people will automatically have more childeren that way.
Also, religious people will raise their children with that religion .Religions are made in such a way that people are 'brainwashed' to believe , from very young age.
But how is this news ? : religions have been doing this for ages , as it is the easiest way to increase your group of followers.
Still , it's dangerous to just assume that everything leaked is automatically valid.
They are in the secret insurance file of wikileaks . But you didn't hear it from me.
We found a toolbar , may we burn it ?
The question is, was his choice of target influenced by teabaggers, conservatives, and right wing pundits' inflammatory, violent anti-government rhetoric?
And how would that be relevant ?
A nutjob like that would find any reason to shoot someone. Any rhetoric would be useful as an excuse.
Are you are implying that 'some things should not be said' , because it can trigger nutjobs to do bad things ?
You are right , insulting people under your own name is so much better.
I looked at the video , but i can see the dots changing color while they move ?
Is there something wrong with my eyes ?
So you had a chance to have a long term relationship with someone and have a child together , even though you are sterile.
I wouldn't know. I didn't claim they did.
You said the iPad was different because it was marketed to a wide audience.
So that seems to suggest that if it wasn't marketed to such a wide audience , it would be considered as a clone ?
The funny thing is , that even if the cables themselves contain nothing the governments don't want us to know , the reaction of the government clearly shows they have something to hide.
That's the power behind the encrypted file . I'm not even sure it actually contains something , but the governments fear it might contain something they want to hide . That is why they fight it so badly.
So regardless of the content , it shows us that the government does have something it wants to hide from it's people , and exactly what they are capable of in order to keep it hidden.
The problems is those news outlets might be tightly connected to the government in some way , so they might all decide to do nothing with it , to protect themselves ( given the treatment wikileaks is getting , you can't exactly blame them )
So you don't like it when people say that they don't know something , rather than agreeing with you ?
That is the only thing i'm saying : i don't know what will happen , and i don't think you know either.
That's actually the opposite of creationists : they claim to know something , even though it can't be proven ( a bit like what you are doing )
I'm open to any hypothesis , but i don't take any of them to be 'true' just because you say so.
So they can clone anything they want , as long as it sells better , it's not a clone ?
More reliable ? they are completely useless to me , because i can't feel the keys.
When you type blindly , it helps that you can feel the keys of the keyboard.
Since a touchscreen is flat , it's horrible to type on it.
This one sentence will make your head explode.
Do something the Queen doesn't like and suffer the consequences ?
You don't get to posit random scenarios and claim that they somehow disprove what I said. There's no link between Russian involvement in WW2 and German research into atomic weapons.
That's just it . I don't claim to disprove what you said. My claim is there is no way to be certain of that.
Just as there 'being no link between WW2 and German research into atomic weapons' , is only true because that is the history we know.
As i said , there is no telling what would happen if one thing changed.
So your view on what would have happened , is as valid as any.
Sorry , but that is hard to say. Change one factor in history and everything might change.
Remember that Germany was also working on an atom bomb.
I also recall that Einstein played a certain role in it ( by writing a letter or at least by signing a letter , informing the president that Germany was building an atom bomb ) , which lead to the US deciding to build the bomb sooner.
What do you think would have happened if Einstein didn't make it the US ?
What would have happend if Germany was able to create the atom bomb , and use it before the US could ?
If you look at history , you will see that many events are based on coincidence. Don't just take anything for granted.
It's a question of balance , really.
You wouldn't consider it acceptable if your company just fired you and a lot of other people , just because a machine can do your job faster and cheaper.
It would be acceptable if they slowly replaced people with machines ( for example when they retire )
The TSA just has the power to f*ck up your day.*
Everyone has that power , if you let them.
You seem to think they want to 'fuck up your day' , as if they do it for pleasure.
In reality, they are only trying to do their jobs, which is hard enough because they are figuratively slammed between two opposing parties : on one side the passengers who do not want to be disturbed , and on the other side the actual terrorist threat . Couple that with the fact that they have to work with inadequate security systems , it doesn't exactly make their lives easier.
Offcourse , it's easier to complain than to actually do something about it , isn't it ?
I know some people who are in airport security , and i can guarantee you , they are only doing their jobs. And they have to follow very strict rules , so it's not like they have any 'power' to abuse .
And yes , they are only human , and they make mistakes.
Everyone makes mistakes , and the beauty of human beings is that we can learn from other people's mistakes.
Yes , but how do you ensure that it stays that way ?
The only way to ensure it , is by the government enforcing it ( net neutrality legislation )
However , by doing so , you take power away from companies ( who previously did whatever they wanted ) , but you give it to the government ( who now have the power to regulate what happens on the internet ).
The problem is that neither groups actually want true 'net neutrality ' : the companies want a model that makes them more profit , and the government wants control over the internet ( like they have with other media ) .
That's the problem , isn't it : what exactly can be understood by "Net Neutrality " .
The reality is simple : each side will have it mean exactly what they want it to mean.
No regulation is bad because companies can take advantage of that , which can be bad for the customer
To much regulation is also bad , because governments can take advantage of this , which is also bad for the customer
In a perfect world , the control shouldn't go to the companies nor the goverments , but to the customer .
Since we don't live in a perfect world , the only logical option is a balance somewhere in between , which we ( the customer ) can control by thinking before we vote and buy.