| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2005/12/3-7 [Politics/Foreign/Canada] UID:40827 Activity:nil |
11/24 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4466096.stm Canadians squandering money on socialist programs. |
| 2005/12/3-7 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:40828 Activity:nil |
11/24 http://www.capsweb.org/main.html Traffic, a deteriorating environment, a completely dysfunctional school system, and overburdened health care are quickly diminishing the quality of life. There is one primary cause for those problems: people. |
| 2005/12/3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Religion] UID:40829 Activity:nil 80%like:40834 |
12/2 The Womyn of the Democrat Party Calendar
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1533214/posts?page=15#15 -jblack |
| 2005/12/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40830 Activity:nil |
12/2 Democrats - protecting you from yourself.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/12/02/game.ban.ap/index.html
\_ Erm. Reads to me like "activist" judge protects us from overzealous
lawmaker. A clerk for Stevens with some good legal sense? Must
lawmaker. A staffer for Stevens with some good legal sense? Must
rock your freakin world... |
| 2005/12/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:40831 Activity:moderate |
12/2 Apparently some Republicans want to do away with birth-rights
citizenship.
http://www.reason.com/links/links112805.shtml
\_ "Service guarantees citizenship!"
\_ great idea. Women/ families should be not allowed to sneak
across the border or go on a shopping trip in San Diego, give
birth, and subsequently become a lifetime ward of the US Fed.
\_ You might want to go read the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights on this subject. But I guess strict construction is
only useful when convenient.
\_ Umm.. The bill of rights is part of the constitution, so
it seems a little silly to suggest he should read both.
Furthermore, you seem to be refering to the 14th
amendment, which is not a part of the Bill of Rights.
anyhow.
\_ Republicans - protecting this country from the scourge of illegal
immigrants killing people with automobiles. This seems like a top
priority.
\_ We should only focus on one thing at a time in the entire
country. Let's cut funding to all medical research, the
military, security, and space research and solve the car death
problem. Good thinking.
\_ Correction: automatic birth-rights citizenship irrespective of the
immigration status of the parents.
\_ Okay, but that takes a long time to type and I got a job to do
here. Anyway, I should have added "Good luck with that one
guys." -op |
| 2005/12/3-6 [Recreation/Computer] UID:40832 Activity:nil |
12/2 Has anyone played Age of Mythology? Is it fun? |
| 2005/12/3-6 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Computer/Companies/Google] UID:40833 Activity:high |
12/2 Wow. That's pretty sad:
http://www.google.com/explanation.html
\_ uh, what's sad about it? -tom
\_ Oh, just that the number of offensive results returned by "Jew"
is so high that they felt compelled to write that. Sad.
I thought.
\_ Why is this surprising? Look at motd.
\_ Google: Cataloging the world's filth.
\_ At least they're consistent about the "let's make all
information easily available" no matter if it's libelous,
owned by someone else or just the sort of thing no one
should need to see, as long as they make a buck on it.
\_ How is google making a buck on this?
\_ (a) "libelous" differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
and I thought it was a given that national restrictions
on who links to what online are silly, (b) "make a buck
on it" is not a bad thing, but for some reason it has a
negative connotation--not making a buck == no google, (c)
who judges what "no one should need to see"? -John
\_ a) in the dictionary sense, b) making a buck spreading
lies is, c) germany has banned nazi stuff, are you
opposed to that? unrelated is google's answer to a
faq on image and link hosting for people who want an
image pulled down: they duck the issue of removing it
from their index and punt it to the user to go ask
the webmaster to remove it when in many cases the
webmaster has posted something maliciously or just
doesn't care what their users post and isn't subject
to the reach of the law. double talk is just sleazy.
as far as google existing or not, i dont really care.
there were search engines before, there will be search
engines after. they're just one search engine of many
that all return roughly the same quality of results.
\_ I am ambivalent about Germany's nazi ban, as it's a
bit of a special case. Nonetheless, Germany has no
control over content hosted abroad, nor do they make
any pretense at doing so (unlike France/Yahoo, which
was a pretty sad precedent.) I don't think it's dis-
ingenuous for a search engine to refer objections
about content to the originating site--after all,
nobody is forcing anyone to look at something they
don't like--you may find it lame but I see it as
pretty central to the availability of information,
reprehensible though it may be, on the Internet. In
their position I wouldn't even have posted the
disclaimer, although I can understand why they saw
it as a prudent thing to do. -John
\_ Which means someone has zero recourse if google
is unwilling to provide a means to people to have
potentially damaging and false information
removed. Below someone claims they remove links
to kiddie porn. I'm firmly in favor of that but
why draw the line there? I don't see why Germany's
ban on Nazi stuff is ok as a 'special case'. As if
by out lawing references to the Nazis they will
magically make the past go away. France/Yahoo is
pretty much the same. Anyway, once you draw a line
there's no difference where yo draw it. You don't
get to claim you're a big pro-information freedom
person when you've made an arbitrary decision that
there really is some information that shouldn't be
seen. (sarcasm for the stupid): Why don't the
parents just complain to the kiddie porn web
masters and ask that their kids be removed from
the net?
\_ Yes, you do have zero recourse. I'm unwilling
to risk someone seeing my (harmless) views as
somehow politically, religiously or culturally
offensive and have a means to censor them. I
think we're fundamentally in agreement here--I
stated that I wouldn't have written the Google
disclaimer, just that I understand where they're
coming from. As for Germany, they have a bit
of peculiar historical background that gives
them a slightly different take on the topic of
nazism, even though they sometimes do not handle
it consistently, that is all. Relax. -John
\_ You're ducking. Google will remove some
links from the index based on some unknown
and arbitrary criteria but will not remove
others and worse, pretends they can't. If
google was consistent and didn't pretend
they have no control over their indexes
instead of waving the "its magic! look!
a shiny penny!" flag around they'd come
across as honest instead of deceptive and
shitty with a touch of holier-than-thou.
\_ Actually I'm pretty sure they have people looking for
things like child porn and taking them out of the indexes.
\_ Well they do, and they admit it. |
| 2005/12/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Religion] UID:40834 Activity:nil 80%like:40829 72%like:40847 |
12/2 The Womyn of the Democrat Party Calendar
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1533214/posts?page=15#15 -jblack |