How do you think the autosuggest terms get in there to begin with? Google looks at it's search and finds words that are often associated with the previous word. The fact that buttloads of people have people with webpage offering cracks for someones software shows up in the search.
You can filter "porn" because Google simply never wants to show porn. You don't want to filter "serial" or "key" because those are terms that have other uses.
But, because someone has whined about it loudly enough, they'll probably simply add to the autosuggest blacklist. People who are looking for software cracks will continue to find them just fine, while people who are innocently looking for something like "serial port" or "key making" will get a substandard experience.
'Crack', 'hack,' 'key' and 'serial number' all have legitimate use. How is Google supposed to figure out that WhateverProduct is software or a car or concrete repair goo?
I'd be curious to find out just exactly how many people "a lot" is. My gut tells me it's a pretty small number, but my gut has been known to lie to me before.
What specific risks have been observed from nanotechnology, and what precautions should be taken to mitigate these risks? No one knows, and research needs to (and will be) done to determine them.
Which is what I would hope the first step of the FDA would be.
The idea that we can't know what could go wrong and that we should just sit back until something bad happens is what I have a problem with. That and the trust people have that industry won't produce anything harmful if left to it's own devices.
If we aren't smart enough to have at least some vague notion what the potential danger areas might be, then maybe we shouldn't really be tinkering with this.
When you build something do you wait until you lose one eye before you put goggles on the other one? Do you wait until you lose fingers on the table saw before you put a fence on it? I'm pretty sure we can find some obviously dangerous practices when making substances that can penetrate cell walls that should be regulated.
"Or better yet, how about the government just stay the eff out of things for a change and let's see what happens, and deal with issues as they arise?"
Yes, this is a wonderful idea. Let's just sit back and let unrestrained industry spit out whatever they want and just wait and deal with a nanotechnology disaster when it happens.
"We at NanoCorp, Ltd. would like to express our sincere regret for those whose nasal passages exploded due to our faulty nanothingamajig. We are currently under Chapter 11 protection, so don't bother sueing us. Also, we kind of don't know how to stop that whole self-replication thing, sorry. So, you know, good luck with that. We'll be in this airtight chamber, let us know when you've figured it out. Again, our heartfelt sympathies."
No, StC tests are tailored to FPS and sidescrolling games, and attempts to use them as a meaningful measurement outside that domain carries no statistical significance. I am unaware of similar tests for the puzzle game phylum.
Start-To-Crate time is still something I check on new games. That was one of the funniest articles I can remember reading.
Die Hard Trilogy 2 (part 2) StC: 9 seconds Notes: This is in the first person shooting mode. Comments: erik: Die Hard Trilogy 2 just keeps getting better. It defies logic. Chet: I can't believe it's so much better than Doom. erik: Science is not about your feelings.
total agreement. Saying it was 'open source' was like saying "yes, the source code is written on a paper bag in pale brown ink. The last time anyone saw it, it was somewhere in Florida. So, you know, it's totally open."
The kid or adult that eventually emerges from said infant may feel weird about pretty much any choice the parents make for him/her. Also, "being released to the world" makes it sound like they're showing it on Fox. It's not even clear to me from the article that humans will watch significant chunks of it.
I can see how this argument can be made for a 3 or 5 year-old, since they are starting to have personality and make their own choices. But simply observing infants is pretty much all the same - they sleep, poop and eat. What's to be embarassed about? "Oh no, the world now knows I was an infant at some point in time and could not control my bowels, I am mortified!"
I'm not really sure how this is 'taking advantage' of the baby, because I don't see how it harms him/her.
Slashdot Mirror
Do I not get it? Why would anyone care what case they were in?
How do you think the autosuggest terms get in there to begin with? Google looks at it's search and finds words that are often associated with the previous word. The fact that buttloads of people have people with webpage offering cracks for someones software shows up in the search.
You can filter "porn" because Google simply never wants to show porn. You don't want to filter "serial" or "key" because those are terms that have other uses.
But, because someone has whined about it loudly enough, they'll probably simply add to the autosuggest blacklist. People who are looking for software cracks will continue to find them just fine, while people who are innocently looking for something like "serial port" or "key making" will get a substandard experience.
Please explain why it is googles responsibility to sanitize the content of the internet.
If bad people are pirating software then the appropriate response is to put those people in prison, not to blame google for finding them.
Exactly.
'Crack', 'hack,' 'key' and 'serial number' all have legitimate use. How is Google supposed to figure out that WhateverProduct is software or a car or concrete repair goo?
How the hell was that a troll? I'm honestly interested in the percentage of cell customers with unlimited data plans.
I'd be curious to find out just exactly how many people "a lot" is. My gut tells me it's a pretty small number, but my gut has been known to lie to me before.
I don't know what all that techno mumbo-jumbo means because it isn't in a flash movie and it doesn't have an awesome musical accompaniement.
h ead/pr/PerpendicularAnimation.html
http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/recording_
Which is what I would hope the first step of the FDA would be.
The idea that we can't know what could go wrong and that we should just sit back until something bad happens is what I have a problem with. That and the trust people have that industry won't produce anything harmful if left to it's own devices.
are that it has something to do with "Gettin' Perpendicular"
If we aren't smart enough to have at least some vague notion what the potential danger areas might be, then maybe we shouldn't really be tinkering with this.
When you build something do you wait until you lose one eye before you put goggles on the other one? Do you wait until you lose fingers on the table saw before you put a fence on it? I'm pretty sure we can find some obviously dangerous practices when making substances that can penetrate cell walls that should be regulated.
are you kidding me?
"If you want to kill off an industry, the best way to do so is to regulate it the way the medical industry and the aviation industry are regulated."
Yeah, that's good point, the medical and airline industries are really hurting these days.
"Or better yet, how about the government just stay the eff out of things for a change and let's see what happens, and deal with issues as they arise?"
Yes, this is a wonderful idea. Let's just sit back and let unrestrained industry spit out whatever they want and just wait and deal with a nanotechnology disaster when it happens.
"We at NanoCorp, Ltd. would like to express our sincere regret for those whose nasal passages exploded due to our faulty nanothingamajig. We are currently under Chapter 11 protection, so don't bother sueing us. Also, we kind of don't know how to stop that whole self-replication thing, sorry. So, you know, good luck with that. We'll be in this airtight chamber, let us know when you've figured it out. Again, our heartfelt sympathies."
No, StC tests are tailored to FPS and sidescrolling games, and attempts to use them as a meaningful measurement outside that domain carries no statistical significance. I am unaware of similar tests for the puzzle game phylum.
Start-To-Crate time is still something I check on new games. That was one of the funniest articles I can remember reading.
Die Hard Trilogy 2 (part 2)
StC: 9 seconds
Notes: This is in the first person shooting mode.
Comments:
erik: Die Hard Trilogy 2 just keeps getting better. It defies logic.
Chet: I can't believe it's so much better than Doom.
erik: Science is not about your feelings.
so awesome.
total agreement. Saying it was 'open source' was like saying "yes, the source code is written on a paper bag in pale brown ink. The last time anyone saw it, it was somewhere in Florida. So, you know, it's totally open."
Hey man, you're right, we should just stand idly by while millions of children die. Why didn't we think of this solution before?!?
"so I don't believe anything in particular, but do accept that it's possible for it to be true, or not"
it's very openminded of you to believe that it's possible for something to be either true or false, I must say.
"a jellyfish that sells crack cocaine to elementary school children."
wow, that's something you don't see every day.
Wow, I wasn't aware there was a videogame based on the Vietnam war where you killed Vietnamese children. Man, this internet is all screwy.
What I said was "3 to 5 years." I think you'll agree that's a pretty soft threshold.
The kid or adult that eventually emerges from said infant may feel weird about pretty much any choice the parents make for him/her. Also, "being released to the world" makes it sound like they're showing it on Fox. It's not even clear to me from the article that humans will watch significant chunks of it.
I can see how this argument can be made for a 3 or 5 year-old, since they are starting to have personality and make their own choices. But simply observing infants is pretty much all the same - they sleep, poop and eat.
What's to be embarassed about? "Oh no, the world now knows I was an infant at some point in time and could not control my bowels, I am mortified!"
I'm not really sure how this is 'taking advantage' of the baby, because I don't see how it harms him/her.
hopefully, because there's a pretty big goddamn difference between a Skinner Box and simply videotaping someone.
If I had to draw an analogy, I'd say it's kind of like the difference between having a police officer glare at you dissaprovingly and being jailed.
"Just like it is easy to write a program that can calculate sin"
I dunno, in these our modern times sin has become pretty much incalculable.
I don't really see how this impacts the child at all. He/she is zero years old - what possible privacy concerns can you have at that point?