- Thread starter Stoner
- Start date
D
Dominus
Guest
Bubba said:
papasmerf said:
Papa, leave Bubba alone. You know he's one of the "special" fellows...
bobistheowl
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2014
- Messages
- 1,935
I was under the impression that $100 of any donation amount was compensation to the woman for having to look at the guy's face. Why would a guy pay for something that he pays someone else to have to do?
W
Wanker
Guest
[h=1]Google Glass goes off the market[/h][h=2]Company aims to build more consumer-friendly version.[/h]
SAN FRANCISCO—Google will stop selling its Internet-connected eyewear to consumers until the company can develop a more polished and affordable version that’s less likely to be viewed as a freakish device.
The sales moratorium on the nearly two-year-old “Explorer” edition of Google Glass goes into effect Jan. 19. The decision announced Thursday coincides with Glass’ spin-off from the secretive Google X lab, where it was invented.
Glass will now operate in a division run by veteran marketing executive Ivy Ross. “I think the move today reflects its maturity, moving Glass out of skunkworks into product development,” said Jon Fisher of CrowdOptic, one of five certified developers that have worked with Glass.
Glass is a hands-free device featuring a thumbnail-sized screen above the wearer’s right eye. It arrived on the consumer market less than a year ago but seemed to appeal to a very small demographic of early adopters. It cost $1,500 (U.S.) and also raised privacy concerns for its potential to secretly take pictures and videos.
The wearable device championed by Google cofounder Sergey Brin struggled to gain traction as a consumer item last year and was frequently lampooned for its social awkwardness.
Even Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg seemed to pan the devices this week during a visit to South America.
“I think it’s pretty easy to imagine that in the future we will have something that we can wear,” Zuckerberg said during a question-and-answer session he held in Colombia. “It will look just like normal glasses — it won’t look weird like some of the stuff that exists today.”
https://www.thestar.com/business/2015/01/15/google-glass-goes-off-the-market.html#
SAN FRANCISCO—Google will stop selling its Internet-connected eyewear to consumers until the company can develop a more polished and affordable version that’s less likely to be viewed as a freakish device.
The sales moratorium on the nearly two-year-old “Explorer” edition of Google Glass goes into effect Jan. 19. The decision announced Thursday coincides with Glass’ spin-off from the secretive Google X lab, where it was invented.
Glass will now operate in a division run by veteran marketing executive Ivy Ross. “I think the move today reflects its maturity, moving Glass out of skunkworks into product development,” said Jon Fisher of CrowdOptic, one of five certified developers that have worked with Glass.
Glass is a hands-free device featuring a thumbnail-sized screen above the wearer’s right eye. It arrived on the consumer market less than a year ago but seemed to appeal to a very small demographic of early adopters. It cost $1,500 (U.S.) and also raised privacy concerns for its potential to secretly take pictures and videos.
The wearable device championed by Google cofounder Sergey Brin struggled to gain traction as a consumer item last year and was frequently lampooned for its social awkwardness.
Even Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg seemed to pan the devices this week during a visit to South America.
“I think it’s pretty easy to imagine that in the future we will have something that we can wear,” Zuckerberg said during a question-and-answer session he held in Colombia. “It will look just like normal glasses — it won’t look weird like some of the stuff that exists today.”
https://www.thestar.com/business/2015/01/15/google-glass-goes-off-the-market.html#
Google bans 'explicit' adult content
Google bans 'explicit' adult content
Google has reversed its decision to ban explicit sexual content on Blogger.
The tech giant said it decided to reverse the ban in light of feedback and concern related to the "retroactive enforcement of the new policy" that would impact bloggers who have held accounts for over 10 years, according to an update Friday by social product support manager Jessica Pelegio on Google's Product Forums.
In addition, Pelegio said the reversal is due in part to the potential "negative impact on individuals who post sexually explicit content to express their identities."
Read on: https://www.cnet.com/news/google-reverses-ban-on-explicit-blogger-content/
Google bans 'explicit' adult content
Google has reversed its decision to ban explicit sexual content on Blogger.
The tech giant said it decided to reverse the ban in light of feedback and concern related to the "retroactive enforcement of the new policy" that would impact bloggers who have held accounts for over 10 years, according to an update Friday by social product support manager Jessica Pelegio on Google's Product Forums.
In addition, Pelegio said the reversal is due in part to the potential "negative impact on individuals who post sexually explicit content to express their identities."
Read on: https://www.cnet.com/news/google-reverses-ban-on-explicit-blogger-content/
Tthere is NO way that they would do this. What made it obvious to me was the immediate PRESS release. It was too close to the announcement of banning to begin with. Fucking idiots.
It's in the way they worded the release, and the message they sent to the end user.
".. NO MORE COMMERCIAL PORN! We'll UP the security monitoring for affiliate links... Yada, yada, yada...
What the fuck does that mean?
So it's OK to post your own porn, but not as affils. Hah. Personally, I think it's a way of driving traffic to Blogger over-fucking-night.
And so the Revenge Porn guy gets 7 years in prison, and now all the husbands around the Net are going to head over to Blogger.
Good tactic against Mangeek. I know they're loving this when fucking Google gets an idea to steal traffic away from them in a PR stint that went waaaay obviously bad.
It's in the way they worded the release, and the message they sent to the end user.
".. NO MORE COMMERCIAL PORN! We'll UP the security monitoring for affiliate links... Yada, yada, yada...
What the fuck does that mean?
So it's OK to post your own porn, but not as affils. Hah. Personally, I think it's a way of driving traffic to Blogger over-fucking-night.
And so the Revenge Porn guy gets 7 years in prison, and now all the husbands around the Net are going to head over to Blogger.
Good tactic against Mangeek. I know they're loving this when fucking Google gets an idea to steal traffic away from them in a PR stint that went waaaay obviously bad.
P
Prick
Guest
False alarm?.
B
Boing
Guest
Google's ship sinking?.
Google's ship sinking?.
Google's search share has fallen below 75% for the first time since 2008, according to statistics from StatCounter.
The US market drop is a stark reflection of Yahoo's small but notable resurgence, as well as Bing's bold attempts to stay in the game. Together, the search engines are chipping away at Google's 10-year dominance and clawing back percentages.
Jan. 2015 saw Yahoo take back search share for two consecutive months: it has risen from 10.4% in December to 10.9% in the new year. It marks a significant growth. In November, Yahoo's stake stood at just 8.6%. It's good news for CEO Marissa Mayer, who made Yahoo's search functionality one of the main areas to improve. It seems this part of her plan is working.
Bing's growth is less decisive, but worth mentioning. From Dec. 2014 to January this year, its share has dropped by 0.1%, but the company has seen its search share rise from 12.1% to 12.4% overall.
Here are the stats:
StatCounter reports that Google took 74.8% of US search referrals (excluding mobile) in January, clearly losing share to two of its main competitors. Yahoo, however, has enjoyed its highest yield for over five years. The main reason for this appears to be the Mozilla Firefox switch:
Yahoo has just become the default search engine for web browser Firefox.
StatCounter CEO Aodhan Cullen said some analysts had predicted Yahoo's share to fall as Firefox users switched to Google in retaliation, but instead the opposite has happened: "Yahoo has increased US search share by half a percentage point," he said. "It will be fascinating to see if these gains continue."
StatCounter has also reported US search usage by Firefox users only: Yahoo-on-Firefox usage in the US has increased from 9.9% in Nov. last year to 28.3% in Jan. 2015. Google, meanwhile, saw 81.9% fall to 63.9% in the same period.
Cullen remarks that Firefox is responsible solely for Google's decline. When Firefox was removed, "Google's losses were erased," he mentions. But the drop remains — the cause isn't the most important thing. If anything, it highlights the power of default search engines.
For now, Google is the default search engine for Safari, Apple's browser. But that deal expires this year. If Apple were to drop Google from Safari, hordes of Mac and iPhone users could be lost from Google's enterprise. It would be a massive loss. At the very least, it would give Yahoo and Bing an even greater chance to gain ground.
And that's not all that's putting Google as risk of losing share in 2015. There's also the issue of desktop usage too: 10 years ago nearly everyone browsed the web predominantly from their computers. But today that's changing. Search Engine Watch notes than desktops are becoming increasingly defunct as people use their smartphones and tablets to go online.
These days, people access the internet often directly through apps, rendering traditional search engines obsolete. In 2014, mobile exceeded PC internet usage for the first time in history.
Google remains the internet's biggest player — by a long way. And it must be said that in the UK, and wider Europe, Google is still the winner, hands-down. It still has nearly 90% of search engine share. That's crazy.
But some feel the comapny has reached its peak, at least in the US — which could be the start of something. Indeed, this graph marks a steady trend in which its falling.
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-search-share-below-75-2015-2
Google's ship sinking?.
Google's search share has fallen below 75% for the first time since 2008, according to statistics from StatCounter.
The US market drop is a stark reflection of Yahoo's small but notable resurgence, as well as Bing's bold attempts to stay in the game. Together, the search engines are chipping away at Google's 10-year dominance and clawing back percentages.
Jan. 2015 saw Yahoo take back search share for two consecutive months: it has risen from 10.4% in December to 10.9% in the new year. It marks a significant growth. In November, Yahoo's stake stood at just 8.6%. It's good news for CEO Marissa Mayer, who made Yahoo's search functionality one of the main areas to improve. It seems this part of her plan is working.
Bing's growth is less decisive, but worth mentioning. From Dec. 2014 to January this year, its share has dropped by 0.1%, but the company has seen its search share rise from 12.1% to 12.4% overall.
Here are the stats:
StatCounter reports that Google took 74.8% of US search referrals (excluding mobile) in January, clearly losing share to two of its main competitors. Yahoo, however, has enjoyed its highest yield for over five years. The main reason for this appears to be the Mozilla Firefox switch:
Yahoo has just become the default search engine for web browser Firefox.
StatCounter CEO Aodhan Cullen said some analysts had predicted Yahoo's share to fall as Firefox users switched to Google in retaliation, but instead the opposite has happened: "Yahoo has increased US search share by half a percentage point," he said. "It will be fascinating to see if these gains continue."
StatCounter has also reported US search usage by Firefox users only: Yahoo-on-Firefox usage in the US has increased from 9.9% in Nov. last year to 28.3% in Jan. 2015. Google, meanwhile, saw 81.9% fall to 63.9% in the same period.
Cullen remarks that Firefox is responsible solely for Google's decline. When Firefox was removed, "Google's losses were erased," he mentions. But the drop remains — the cause isn't the most important thing. If anything, it highlights the power of default search engines.
For now, Google is the default search engine for Safari, Apple's browser. But that deal expires this year. If Apple were to drop Google from Safari, hordes of Mac and iPhone users could be lost from Google's enterprise. It would be a massive loss. At the very least, it would give Yahoo and Bing an even greater chance to gain ground.
And that's not all that's putting Google as risk of losing share in 2015. There's also the issue of desktop usage too: 10 years ago nearly everyone browsed the web predominantly from their computers. But today that's changing. Search Engine Watch notes than desktops are becoming increasingly defunct as people use their smartphones and tablets to go online.
These days, people access the internet often directly through apps, rendering traditional search engines obsolete. In 2014, mobile exceeded PC internet usage for the first time in history.
Google remains the internet's biggest player — by a long way. And it must be said that in the UK, and wider Europe, Google is still the winner, hands-down. It still has nearly 90% of search engine share. That's crazy.
But some feel the comapny has reached its peak, at least in the US — which could be the start of something. Indeed, this graph marks a steady trend in which its falling.
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-search-share-below-75-2015-2
SmkngPopeye
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2011
- Messages
- 220
At that rate they will remain on top for decades.
SmkngPopeye said:
StatCounter has also reported US search usage by Firefox users only: Yahoo-on-Firefox usage in the US has increased from 9.9% in Nov. last year to 28.3% in Jan. 2015. Google, meanwhile, saw
81.9% fall to 63.9% in the same period.
W
Wanker
Guest
Guilty verdict overturned after judge consults Google Street View
Guilty verdict overturned after judge consults Google Street View
That has to be a first, no?.
[h=2]Soheil Ghaleenovee, who is accused of punching a woman in the face outside Toronto’s Muzik nightclub in 2011, gets a new trial after an Ontario judge investigated the alleged crime scene on his own accord.[/h]
An Ontario judge who used Google Street View of his own accord while presiding over an assault case has had his guilty verdict overturned when an appeal determined the judge’s personal investigation prejudiced his decision.
“I have no doubt that the trial judge was conscientiously attempting to do his duty in conducting a search for the truth . . . Unfortunately, however, a reasonable observer would conclude that the fairness of the trial was compromised,” wrote Superior Court Justice Robert Goldstein in his decision last week to order a new trial.
The trial judge, who was not identified in Goldstein’s March 17 decision, consulted the online technology that displays panoramic views of streets across the world during the trial of Soheil Ghaleenovee, who was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an incident outside Toronto’s Musik nightclub in December 2011.
According to Goldstein’s decision, the complainant Pouneh Ahmadi alleged that Ghaleenovee, a stranger, punched her in the face as she was leaving the nightclub in the early hours of Dec. 4, 2011. The Crown argued Ghaleenovee cut his hand on Ahmadi’s teeth when he hit her in the mouth. Ghaleenovee denied hitting Ahmadi, testifying instead that he cut his hand when he was pushed into a fence outside the nightclub during a fight with a man that same evening.
The trial judge used Google Street View to pull up an image of the nightclub while Ghaleenovee’s friend Gott Chanthapathet was testifying as a witness, and questioned the man about the fence. The image was entered as an exhibit, though Ghaleenovee, who had already testified, was never questioned about it. The trial judge also concluded the cuts on the accused’s knuckles were consistent with tooth marks without seeking expert evidence.
The trial judge relied in part on the image to find the accused guilty, according to an excerpt from the proceedings found in Goldstein’s decision.
“He offers an explanation for how he got the cuts to his knuckles, but it does not seem very likely that he could have cut his hand on the fence in the way he described, or at all,” the trial judge said. “The fences in question are tubular, they have corners, but not the kind of corners that anybody could cut their hands on, particularly in the way described by Mr. Ghaleenovee . . .”
Downloading the image from the Internet on his own accord, not putting the image to the accused and making observations without expert evidence all “compromised the appearance of fairness” and merited a new trial, Goldstein wrote.
The case is a cautionary tale on why judges shouldn’t become involved in the prosecution of a case, said Toronto criminal defence lawyer Daniel Brown.
Though judges are allowed what’s called judicial notice — a rule that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known it can’t reasonably be doubted — the trial judge in this scenario made leaps that weren’t supported by evidence and jeopardized the verdict, Brown said, noting that Street View images are often several years old.
“By relying on Google Street View for the design of the fence, one thing we don’t know is when that photograph was taken and whether that accurately depicted how that fence looked at the time that this incident occurred.”
Alan Young, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, said the ideal judge is a passive, neutral umpire.
“Sometimes checking things out for yourself is irresistible, and it will happen, but the fatal flaw is when you overstep your boundary and become an investigator, like this judge did.
“At a minimum, you have to put that evidence to both counsels, adjourn and give them opportunity to address it.”
Like a jury, a judge must make a decision from the evidence presented by the Crown and the defence, not outside sources, said Mark Halfyard, an appellant lawyer in Toronto.
“When there’s a specific piece of evidence that’s pivotal to the ruling, the judge shouldn’t be going on Google Maps or consulting any other source and then basically rebutting the defence’s argument about how these injuries were caused.”
Peter Lindsay, the lawyer who represented Ghaleenovee at his appeal March 10, said the judge’s decision to use Google Street View was “highly unusual” and the timing of the Internet search — following his client’s testimony — was particularly problematic.
Lindsay said his client, who has maintained his innocence since his arrest more than three years ago, welcomes the new trial if the Crown decides to prosecute him again. If they do, Lindsay expects an initial set date in a few weeks.
https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/...-after-judge-consults-google-street-view.html
Guilty verdict overturned after judge consults Google Street View
That has to be a first, no?.
[h=2]Soheil Ghaleenovee, who is accused of punching a woman in the face outside Toronto’s Muzik nightclub in 2011, gets a new trial after an Ontario judge investigated the alleged crime scene on his own accord.[/h]
An Ontario judge who used Google Street View of his own accord while presiding over an assault case has had his guilty verdict overturned when an appeal determined the judge’s personal investigation prejudiced his decision.
“I have no doubt that the trial judge was conscientiously attempting to do his duty in conducting a search for the truth . . . Unfortunately, however, a reasonable observer would conclude that the fairness of the trial was compromised,” wrote Superior Court Justice Robert Goldstein in his decision last week to order a new trial.
The trial judge, who was not identified in Goldstein’s March 17 decision, consulted the online technology that displays panoramic views of streets across the world during the trial of Soheil Ghaleenovee, who was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an incident outside Toronto’s Musik nightclub in December 2011.
According to Goldstein’s decision, the complainant Pouneh Ahmadi alleged that Ghaleenovee, a stranger, punched her in the face as she was leaving the nightclub in the early hours of Dec. 4, 2011. The Crown argued Ghaleenovee cut his hand on Ahmadi’s teeth when he hit her in the mouth. Ghaleenovee denied hitting Ahmadi, testifying instead that he cut his hand when he was pushed into a fence outside the nightclub during a fight with a man that same evening.
The trial judge used Google Street View to pull up an image of the nightclub while Ghaleenovee’s friend Gott Chanthapathet was testifying as a witness, and questioned the man about the fence. The image was entered as an exhibit, though Ghaleenovee, who had already testified, was never questioned about it. The trial judge also concluded the cuts on the accused’s knuckles were consistent with tooth marks without seeking expert evidence.
The trial judge relied in part on the image to find the accused guilty, according to an excerpt from the proceedings found in Goldstein’s decision.
“He offers an explanation for how he got the cuts to his knuckles, but it does not seem very likely that he could have cut his hand on the fence in the way he described, or at all,” the trial judge said. “The fences in question are tubular, they have corners, but not the kind of corners that anybody could cut their hands on, particularly in the way described by Mr. Ghaleenovee . . .”
Downloading the image from the Internet on his own accord, not putting the image to the accused and making observations without expert evidence all “compromised the appearance of fairness” and merited a new trial, Goldstein wrote.
The case is a cautionary tale on why judges shouldn’t become involved in the prosecution of a case, said Toronto criminal defence lawyer Daniel Brown.
Though judges are allowed what’s called judicial notice — a rule that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known it can’t reasonably be doubted — the trial judge in this scenario made leaps that weren’t supported by evidence and jeopardized the verdict, Brown said, noting that Street View images are often several years old.
“By relying on Google Street View for the design of the fence, one thing we don’t know is when that photograph was taken and whether that accurately depicted how that fence looked at the time that this incident occurred.”
Alan Young, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, said the ideal judge is a passive, neutral umpire.
“Sometimes checking things out for yourself is irresistible, and it will happen, but the fatal flaw is when you overstep your boundary and become an investigator, like this judge did.
“At a minimum, you have to put that evidence to both counsels, adjourn and give them opportunity to address it.”
Like a jury, a judge must make a decision from the evidence presented by the Crown and the defence, not outside sources, said Mark Halfyard, an appellant lawyer in Toronto.
“When there’s a specific piece of evidence that’s pivotal to the ruling, the judge shouldn’t be going on Google Maps or consulting any other source and then basically rebutting the defence’s argument about how these injuries were caused.”
Peter Lindsay, the lawyer who represented Ghaleenovee at his appeal March 10, said the judge’s decision to use Google Street View was “highly unusual” and the timing of the Internet search — following his client’s testimony — was particularly problematic.
Lindsay said his client, who has maintained his innocence since his arrest more than three years ago, welcomes the new trial if the Crown decides to prosecute him again. If they do, Lindsay expects an initial set date in a few weeks.
https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/...-after-judge-consults-google-street-view.html
