gress

85 ms·

931.
by gress 12y ago
Well Matt is a relentless explainer of Google's position. That earns him a lot of credibility and support when the position makes sense, but if what they are doing ultimately is considered harmful, then he's going to look like an
932.
by gress 12y ago
You haven't enlightened me at all. I know that the surface can do a lot of things. The question is - does it do any of those things better than the competition. When in "classical desktop mode" it needs to be better than t
933.
by gress 12y ago
The whole point people are making is that tablets aren't good for work, which is why the surface is so great. So the surface has to be better than the MacBook Air for work, or better than an iPad as a tablet. Otherwise it's just a
934.
by gress 12y ago
But is it better than a MacBook Air?
935.
by gress 12y ago
Just scrolling the website is jerky on my iPad Air. That doesn't seem like good design.
936.
by gress 12y ago
At any court you like. It happens all the time.
937.
by gress 12y ago
Photons have zero rest mass.
938.
by gress 12y ago
The only unclear thinking is you stating that Google is nothing more than a word index. That is plainly a delusion. Or are you arguing that anyone who operates a word index can do no wrong?
939.
by gress 12y ago
What exactly are you arguing with and why are you telling me to stop thinking things? That sounds rude. I don't disagree with any of the statements you have just made, and nothing I said in my previous comment contradicts that - so wh
940.
by gress 12y ago
Only if you think most of them are Samsung Galaxies or Moto X's. Most of them are just replacements for the low end Nokia's that used to be predominant. A billion cheap phones is not a new statistic.
941.
by gress 12y ago
No. People who choose GPL choose not to publish their software in the App Store.
942.
by gress 12y ago
How does that follow from 'it's up to the courts to decide what is harmful'?
943.
by gress 12y ago
If you think that Google is nothing more than a word index, and not a corporation, then you are delusional. It's as simple as that.
944.
by gress 12y ago
Your arguments are bizarre, and you claim I have said things that I have not. I am not opposed to the operation of search engines. I simply think they should be held responsible by law for the effects they have on society.
945.
by gress 12y ago
The harm is done by what Google publishes. I've told you this repeatedly. The fact that they use a word index as part of the mechanism is irrelevant. I have repeatedly defended my thought processes. You have simply ignored what I&#
946.
by gress 12y ago
Given that most Chrome users installed it because of the deal with flash or advertising on the Google home page, and updates are silent, it's safe to assume very few of them have any idea what is being introduced or when or what the im
947.
by gress 12y ago
Pixelmator, Sketch, Omnigraffle, Logic, FCP, Motion, are pretty solid creative tools.
948.
by gress 12y ago
Certainly there are limits. That's why it is an issue for courts and legislatures to decide what they should be. My argument is simply that it's entirely appropriate for courts to decide based on the social harms and that &#x2
949.
by gress 12y ago
I know how a search engine works. Saying I don't know simply proves that you are willing to make statements that you provably cannot support, which weakens everything else you say. I simply disagree with your views on the responsibilit
950.
by gress 12y ago
Any time you publish information on the web you need to consider whether you are defaming someone. This applies whether a word index is part of your publishing process or not. These laws aren't written about 'word indexes' t
951.
by gress 12y ago
Because otherwise it will defame people selectively.
952.
by gress 12y ago
Where do those websites get the information from?
953.
by gress 12y ago
I am not contradicting myself. You are simply repeating a straw man argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Note in particular point 2 of the structure: Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead
954.
by gress 12y ago
You seem to be saying that there is no Google corporation, no Larry Page or Sergei Brin, and no Google Offices or employees, or executives. That is what it means to assert that google is just an algorithm.
955.
by gress 12y ago
Google searches discriminate based on the kind of information that is available about a person. Someone who has a strong online presence will look better than someone who does not because then these public records will be more prominent. Th
956.
by gress 12y ago
The responsibility could be measured in how much exposure each site gave to the information. Who gets to decide what is harmful is indeed generally decided by courts. I agree that it shouldn't be a special case. Google does discrimina
957.
by gress 12y ago
The law does apply to everyone, DDG included. Google just happens to be the largest offender.
958.
by gress 12y ago
I said nothing about not blaming the original sites. Only that Google is responsible for the effects of their service.
959.
by gress 12y ago
You keep asking that and I've already answered. No. The harm is in the information you publish about people. Using a word index algorithm in the process is irrelevant to that.
960.
by gress 12y ago
Google is duplicating the information just as the other sites have done. The difference is that it has far more reach.

More ›