@spamcourt said:
The only thing I want in these forums is animated avatars.
Damn thing converts everything that's not gif or jpg to jpg, so not even APNG gets through.
Could you put the image in your signature, then position it over your avatar?
@spamcourt said:
The only thing I want in these forums is animated avatars.
Damn thing converts everything that's not gif or jpg to jpg, so not even APNG gets through.
@boomzilla said:
I suppose they might have decided the jurisdiction was OK even without Google Spain being there, buttuming they still sold ads geared towards Spain.
I agree with your buttessment of this.
@boomzilla said:
@Lorne Kates said:He specifically puts "no political ads" during election season, because every fucking PAC puts out bullshit propaganda/attack ads/outright lies. He doesn't want that shit on his site. And yet, every election season, the ads get there anyways because the advertisers LIE. They've got workarounds. They miscatagorize. They exploit. And BAM, fucking political ads. So bad it's to the point where he TURNS OFF ADS during election season.I make it a point to click on the ads for candidates / issues / groups I disagree with, just in case there's some connection between clicks and payments. I request all of their free stickers and stuff, too.
But what if they're measuring voter interest by clicks? You might be making them more attractive to potential backers!
@joe.edwards said:
<Snipped…>
What evidence do I have to provide before Google complies with my request? Could I fraudulently exercise the "right for my competition to be forgotten"?
I'm honestly not sure—that's my biggest question in this as well.
@DrPepper said:
@Buttembly Coder said:@DrPepper said:Well, duh; but how do they decide whether any particular page should be removed or not? And what if it's a blog that allows user comments, and I happen to mention this guy in a comment? Does the page get blocked then?How exactly would Google implement this? And how would the EU enforce this? For example, consider this guy with the foreclosure. Now there are a ton of pages/posts/blogs that talk about him and his foreclosure. Does google need to filter out ALL of these results? Or only the ones that mention him by name? I suppose you can filter out "Guys name" + "Foreclosure" but how about "Guys name" + "lost his house because he didn't pay the mortgage"? I just think this is a silly law -- that it's impossible to strictly filter out the results; and enforcing the law is impossible too. Think of a room full of lawyers from Google and from this guy, arguing over whether a web page mentions him and his foreclosure, or not.Without taking a stance on the politics of this, I believe that Google is simply supposed to remove the links to the "offending" pages entirely, regardless of the query.
That is to say, www.example.com/foreclosureguy would simply not appear in the search results on Google.
Imagine the power that gives me -- I can keep anyone's blog post from google's search results simply by leaving a comment mentioning something that Google must block. (at least in the EU)
I believe the point is that the individual can "report a given link/page". Again, not based on query and also not based on content, just "remove this link from search results".
I also believe you may be overthinking this.
@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
why would you purchase anything BUT?why would you purchase anything BUTT?
I hate it when you resort to insults :-(
@DrPepper said:
How exactly would Google implement this? And how would the EU enforce this? For example, consider this guy with the foreclosure. Now there are a ton of pages/posts/blogs that talk about him and his foreclosure. Does google need to filter out ALL of these results? Or only the ones that mention him by name? I suppose you can filter out "Guys name" + "Foreclosure" but how about "Guys name" + "lost his house because he didn't pay the mortgage"? I just think this is a silly law -- that it's impossible to strictly filter out the results; and enforcing the law is impossible too. Think of a room full of lawyers from Google and from this guy, arguing over whether a web page mentions him and his foreclosure, or not.
Without taking a stance on the politics of this, I believe that Google is simply supposed to remove the links to the "offending" pages entirely, regardless of the query.
That is to say, www.example.com/foreclosureguy would simply not appear in the search results on Google.
@mott555 said:
In my mind I've already mentally filed away the majority of TDWTF's members as trolls
I'm pretty sure you could s/major/entire/gi on that.
@mott555 said:On the other hand, it's also somewhat refreshing to see a forum where such topics are apparently allowed and don't result in constant moderation and carpet-bombing runs with the banhammer.
There are relatively few active users here compared to other forums I frequent. Just enough to start glorious flame wars, but just few enough that it tends to end with kissing and making up rather than mass bans.
@mott555 said:I don't participate much because I'm not a very good debater nor am I a particularly good troller.
Trolling is easy; you just point out that women are better C programmers than men.
@boomzilla said:
…there's no point talking to you…
What point did you think there was before this? I doubt you were honestly expecting to accomplish something through an internet argument.
As far as when I am and am not trolling, I generally try to tag the troll posts appropriately, but sometimes that takes the fun out of it, and sometimes I'm using tags for something else.
@DrakeSmith said:
@Snooder said:@DrakeSmith said:
@bstorer said:@morbiuswilters said:Is that where those inedible peppermint things come from?In terms of origin, yes. In terms of the ones sitting on store shelves today, no. Hershey moved production from Reading, PA to Mexico five years ago.
Hmmm... maybe we're not taxing corporations enough if they're moving operations out of the country. Tax more of the wealthy! That'll fix everything.
Yes, Mexico is indeed the role model our country should follow. Let's learn from that bastion of free enterprise and glorious capitalism.
Honestly, I'm pretty anti-tax personally, but suggesting that we emulate fucking Mexico to avoid having corporations leave to operate there is just stupidity of the highest order.
Really? I'm not inferring in anyway that we emulate Mexico. I'm merely suggesting that higher taxes drive revenue away, especially places in the NE (and Cali) where taxes are so high. Toyota, for example, leaving California for Texas - it just so happens that in this case it was Mexico.
The goal, I believe, is to tax them heavily enough that they can't afford to move away. Bonus points for levying additional taxes should they try to leave anyways.
@dkf said:
@Buttembly Coder said:you're imagining it to be in some language other than englishObjectivist English?
Also known as Liberian English, I suppose?