You say, and I quote: "No, in an orderly society people should keep outspoken ideas to themselves in order to avoid upsetting social and economic stability."
Hah. I'd love to know where this "orderly society" exists - kindly enlighten me.
I am a G+ member (using my real name) and I love the service. However, there are times when I want to post things that may cause problems. I have a blog (yes, a Google one!) which allows me a level of anonymity - I can be outspoken at times, and the ability to say what is really on my mind is important.
I agree with most, if not all, of the bullets in the main article, and I really think that G+ needs to revisit this policy. They do tend to listen to their customers, so hopefully this will happen. I am certainly going to speak to them about this, and I urge others who feel the same way to speak their mind as well!
I love Google - I've been one of their customers since the outset - and hopefully this won't sour my opinion.
I have had NO RESPONSE from the NYTimes. Hardly a surprise, I s'pose, considering the apparent failure of their brilliant scheme. Rather a shame, since I have the utmost respect for the paper. Ah well.
Comment #24 talks about the Book Review, which is even better than what I discovered - at least, for those willing to pay the NYT something...
The basic online sub (no print) is $3.75/week. Their weekday print sub is $3.70/week, which includes full online access (worth more than the basic online access). And, their Sunday print sub is $3.75/week, which also includes online.
I've asked the NYT why this is, so if they respond, I will update y'all.
(And, yes - the price is way too high, even if the NYT's shit don't stink.)
I'm a heavy user of the NYT, and generally have no problems with the cookies they use. But I've noticed recently that they've been trying to drop cookies with suspicious-sounding URLs (metrics.NYT..., test1.NYT..., etc.) onto my drive. Looks like they're trying to see if this first-click monstrosity might actually work. No way will I allow these cookies anywhere near my machine.
But yes, of course - any decent browser (Chrome, Firefox) will let you remove cookies selectively. No need to dump the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, it's a pain in the ass to have to do this, which is why I prefer Mike's approach of trying to link to free sites when possible - and believe me, I say that reluctantly, because I really do like the depth of coverage in the NYT.
Fwiw, I'm a paid subscriber to the NYT.
I hate to pick nits, but the current fad of, er, verbifying nouns is driving me crazy. There's a great example in this post: "...an attempt to shakedown people for money,..." Mike, I always enjoy and respect your posts (even when I don't agree!), but "shakedown" is a noun, sometimes even an adjective, but never a verb!
This is a standard anti-counterfeiting trick. Example: If you still have an old-style Visa credit card, take a look at the repeated word VISA in the micro-printing around the large Visa logo. There are two or three places where it's spelled VAIS (as I recall, there's one about three or four from the left in the third row). This was deliberate - I used to work for Visa, and there are other secrets about card design that I'm not going to divulge - the only reason I mention this one is because that design is now defunct. But, believe me, this is a routine form of fighting counterfeits.
I also complained. We all should! Here's what I said:
--------
Your C&D notification to deadliestcatchtv.com was destructive. You supported their website for a long time prior to the takedown, which could (will?) lead to a boycott of your channel(s) - I, for one, will (a) no longer watch any shows on your network, and (b) spread the word about what happened, and encourage my friends to do the same.
--------
@Stones: That's exactly what they did. The site has been taken down, but if you look at Google's cached copy, you will see an explanation of what he did. Btw, I agree with the views about fighting the lawyers - it's a bit like farting against thunder.
@Anonymous Coward: You're not seeing the wood for the trees - I disagree with your ending statement that one should not just take a "sidelong glance." While the decision needs to be thoughtful, it needs to resolve the fundamental notion, and not get caught up in the details.
Well said, Mike! I probably would have dismissed that rant, seeing as it clearly came from someone who is ignorant of (or deliberately ignoring?) the facts. But I'm glad you responded, if only to point out the absolute stupidity of the commenter's "argument."
Well said! Of course it's a scam, but I would challenge the 'moron' label -- while their software may be moronic, their, ahem, business acumen is not. After all, if they can get suckers to pay $40 for software that does the OPPOSITE of what it claims (i.e. mess up your machine, not fix it), then they have my admiration. Taking advantage of a foolish public who cannot be bothered to check sites like this before they buy is something that, sad to say, happens way too often. AND they get away with it when challenged. So... Scam:1, Moron:0 ;-)
Re: Re: Words words words
Good point -- just put it down to a brain fart! I guess I was so impressed by the big words I wasn't thinking...
Words words words
You gotta love the court's use of big words like hippopotamus:
pellucid
apophasis
lutefisk
Even Techdirt's spell-checker doesn't like the last two!
Fun stuff.
Re: Re: Pseudonyms are often better
Yes - myself. And to others with an open mind.
You say, and I quote: "No, in an orderly society people should keep outspoken ideas to themselves in order to avoid upsetting social and economic stability."
Hah. I'd love to know where this "orderly society" exists - kindly enlighten me.
Pseudonyms are often better
I am a G+ member (using my real name) and I love the service. However, there are times when I want to post things that may cause problems. I have a blog (yes, a Google one!) which allows me a level of anonymity - I can be outspoken at times, and the ability to say what is really on my mind is important.
I agree with most, if not all, of the bullets in the main article, and I really think that G+ needs to revisit this policy. They do tend to listen to their customers, so hopefully this will happen. I am certainly going to speak to them about this, and I urge others who feel the same way to speak their mind as well!
I love Google - I've been one of their customers since the outset - and hopefully this won't sour my opinion.
- D
Get a sense of proportion, PLEASE!
I really don't think that Maher was being serious - he simply acknowledged something (incorrectly, as it turns out, but still).
No biggie - nothing to see hear folks, please move on.
Re: invent this joke
Nothing to "invent" here -- it's as old as the hills!
Y'know, you really need to tell the WHOLE joke, not just the punchline - how many people realize this is a pun on "rectum"?
(BRIEFLY: Story teller: "Some guy shot me in the asshole." Indignant response: "Rectum." Storyteller: "Wrecked him? Damn near killed him!")
C'mon, folks - be honest - how many of you got this one?
Re: Weird pricing structure
("Replying" to myself - actually just an update.)
I have had NO RESPONSE from the NYTimes. Hardly a surprise, I s'pose, considering the apparent failure of their brilliant scheme. Rather a shame, since I have the utmost respect for the paper. Ah well.
- D
Weird pricing structure
Comment #24 talks about the Book Review, which is even better than what I discovered - at least, for those willing to pay the NYT something...
The basic online sub (no print) is $3.75/week. Their weekday print sub is $3.70/week, which includes full online access (worth more than the basic online access). And, their Sunday print sub is $3.75/week, which also includes online.
I've asked the NYT why this is, so if they respond, I will update y'all.
(And, yes - the price is way too high, even if the NYT's shit don't stink.)
- D
Re: Re:
Damn, I blinked twice when I read your comment - guess I owe you 15.
NYT seems to be testing
I'm a heavy user of the NYT, and generally have no problems with the cookies they use. But I've noticed recently that they've been trying to drop cookies with suspicious-sounding URLs (metrics.NYT..., test1.NYT..., etc.) onto my drive. Looks like they're trying to see if this first-click monstrosity might actually work. No way will I allow these cookies anywhere near my machine. But yes, of course - any decent browser (Chrome, Firefox) will let you remove cookies selectively. No need to dump the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, it's a pain in the ass to have to do this, which is why I prefer Mike's approach of trying to link to free sites when possible - and believe me, I say that reluctantly, because I really do like the depth of coverage in the NYT. Fwiw, I'm a paid subscriber to the NYT.
Shakedown
I hate to pick nits, but the current fad of, er, verbifying nouns is driving me crazy. There's a great example in this post: "...an attempt to shakedown people for money,..." Mike, I always enjoy and respect your posts (even when I don't agree!), but "shakedown" is a noun, sometimes even an adjective, but never a verb!
Google search
I notice, however, that Google suppresses ads when you search a term like [Bev Stayart].
It's deliberate
This is a standard anti-counterfeiting trick. Example: If you still have an old-style Visa credit card, take a look at the repeated word VISA in the micro-printing around the large Visa logo. There are two or three places where it's spelled VAIS (as I recall, there's one about three or four from the left in the third row). This was deliberate - I used to work for Visa, and there are other secrets about card design that I'm not going to divulge - the only reason I mention this one is because that design is now defunct. But, believe me, this is a routine form of fighting counterfeits.
Re: Re: Re: Complaining
Thanks for the response John - good luck, and please keep us up to date on happenings! Also let us know the URL of your new site.
Re: Complaining
I also complained. We all should! Here's what I said:
--------
Your C&D notification to deadliestcatchtv.com was destructive. You supported their website for a long time prior to the takedown, which could (will?) lead to a boycott of your channel(s) - I, for one, will (a) no longer watch any shows on your network, and (b) spread the word about what happened, and encourage my friends to do the same.
--------
Re: Re: Stones
@Stones: That's exactly what they did. The site has been taken down, but if you look at Google's cached copy, you will see an explanation of what he did. Btw, I agree with the views about fighting the lawyers - it's a bit like farting against thunder.
Re: Re: Too mired
@Anonymous Coward: You're not seeing the wood for the trees - I disagree with your ending statement that one should not just take a "sidelong glance." While the decision needs to be thoughtful, it needs to resolve the fundamental notion, and not get caught up in the details.
Re: Re: Please explain ??
Well said, Mike! I probably would have dismissed that rant, seeing as it clearly came from someone who is ignorant of (or deliberately ignoring?) the facts. But I'm glad you responded, if only to point out the absolute stupidity of the commenter's "argument."
Re: Confirmed - total PoS, seems like scam to me
Well said! Of course it's a scam, but I would challenge the 'moron' label -- while their software may be moronic, their, ahem, business acumen is not. After all, if they can get suckers to pay $40 for software that does the OPPOSITE of what it claims (i.e. mess up your machine, not fix it), then they have my admiration. Taking advantage of a foolish public who cannot be bothered to check sites like this before they buy is something that, sad to say, happens way too often. AND they get away with it when challenged. So... Scam:1, Moron:0 ;-)
Re: CyberDefender's Attorneys
Talk about beating a dead horse!!! This gets weirder and funnier by the minute.