You're going about this incorrectly. If a piece of hardware works in one distribution, it will theoretically work in all. Granted, it will probably be easier in Ubuntu or Fedora, but just because you may have to work a little harder in Slackware doesn't mean the hardware isn't compatible. The OS is still GNU/Linux, and there are very few hardware-related tools that are propriety among any one of the big distros.
Your daughter is going to simply arrange for her cell be where you expect it to be while hooking up with her "diseased cock" using a prepaid disposable, thus all you will be doing is impossing a financial burden on her.
Which she will, inevitably, pay for with the money from the diseased cock.
I can't remember if it's the terrorists or the sex offenders winning at this point.
they are not a public utility nor a monopoly so they can bloody well use any method to rate sites they want and Devil take the hindmost; no one is obligated to use them.
But they have a reputation to keep if they're going to keep vistors and ad-impressions. Showing integrity is one way to do that.
If Google reported my site as "spyware-filled" and it wasn't, I'd want Google to fix it. As long as they have a straightforward and reasonably quick process for dealing with false positives, I'd be glad if they moved spyware-filled sites to the bottom of the list, if not off the list altogether (perhaps by a check box, as mentioned in another post).
But how would you know it was marked if it's on the bottom? Do you periodically check the 1000th page of a google search you believe your site should show up under to see if it's marked "spyware!"?
Sounds like a hit-and-miss to me.
And regarding a "please check me, I promise I'm not spyware" button, that's not something Google would do. If they discover a Google-bomb, they remove it from the database. And once something's done, Google has a history of not undoing it.
Because google [claims it] doesn't alter search results. Flagging them doesn't technically alter them (it just displays a bit more information), but moving them to the bottom of the pile, so to speak, is.
But what if your site was somehow rated as "spyware-filled", when, in fact, it wasn't? Would you rather be flagged as dangerous, or would you rather be sent to the bottom? At least the flag can be ignored.
How does it violates the GPL to make another front-end for the database dump? I truely don't see the case here, please enlighten me.
Because the database dump itself isn't being provided. It's making what the GPL tried to make and keep free a little less free. Not to mention that he pleged it (the front-end) would be free, even if that's not a GPL issue, but more of a moral issue.
Slashdot Mirror
You're going about this incorrectly. If a piece of hardware works in one distribution, it will theoretically work in all. Granted, it will probably be easier in Ubuntu or Fedora, but just because you may have to work a little harder in Slackware doesn't mean the hardware isn't compatible. The OS is still GNU/Linux, and there are very few hardware-related tools that are propriety among any one of the big distros.
But they have a reputation to keep if they're going to keep vistors and ad-impressions. Showing integrity is one way to do that.
Sounds like a hit-and-miss to me.
And regarding a "please check me, I promise I'm not spyware" button, that's not something Google would do. If they discover a Google-bomb, they remove it from the database. And once something's done, Google has a history of not undoing it.
Because google [claims it] doesn't alter search results. Flagging them doesn't technically alter them (it just displays a bit more information), but moving them to the bottom of the pile, so to speak, is.
But what if your site was somehow rated as "spyware-filled", when, in fact, it wasn't? Would you rather be flagged as dangerous, or would you rather be sent to the bottom? At least the flag can be ignored.