Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. "Don't be evil"

"Don't be evil"

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
42 Posts 20 Posters 3 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • B BupeChombaDerrick

    Google is king when it comes to violating it's own motto "Don't be evil" :laugh:

    “Everything is simple when you take your time to analyze it.”

    M Offline
    M Offline
    Mark_Wallace
    wrote on last edited by
    #16

    It's an anagram of "Embody Evil". (Hey, that's about as accurate as half the statements made in meetings, and there's a chance he's dylsexic, and I'll get away with it)

    I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

    OriginalGriffO 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • M Marc Clifton

      Evil serves a very important role. Without evil, we wouldn't know what good is. Thus, evil is simply a "lesser good". Therefore, Google is good. QED. Marc

      Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!

      R Offline
      R Offline
      ronDW
      wrote on last edited by
      #17

      Evil deserves no role. If we did not have evil then we would have no problem not knowing what good is. We would be happy as ever never asking the question.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • M Marc Clifton

        Evil serves a very important role. Without evil, we wouldn't know what good is. Thus, evil is simply a "lesser good". Therefore, Google is good. QED. Marc

        Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!

        R Offline
        R Offline
        Roger Wright
        wrote on last edited by
        #18

        Good lord, I never realized you work for Obama... :doh:

        Will Rogers never met me.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • M Mark_Wallace

          It's an anagram of "Embody Evil". (Hey, that's about as accurate as half the statements made in meetings, and there's a chance he's dylsexic, and I'll get away with it)

          I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

          OriginalGriffO Offline
          OriginalGriffO Offline
          OriginalGriff
          wrote on last edited by
          #19

          It's an anagram of "Violent Bed" if that helps?

          Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

          "I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
          "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt

          M 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • OriginalGriffO OriginalGriff

            It's an anagram of "Violent Bed" if that helps?

            Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

            M Offline
            M Offline
            Mark_Wallace
            wrote on last edited by
            #20

            I'm sure it would help someone; just not sure whom.

            I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • D DaveX86

              Because they're 'projecting'...they blame everyone else for their own shortcomings ie: they're evil. You see this a lot...for example, people who 'promote awareness' seem to have a severe lack of it themselves.

              M Offline
              M Offline
              Mark_Wallace
              wrote on last edited by
              #21

              My favourites are the conspiracy theorists who say that we should have secret meetings to discuss how to deal with all the conspiracies.

              I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

              OriginalGriffO 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • M Marc Clifton

                Evil serves a very important role. Without evil, we wouldn't know what good is. Thus, evil is simply a "lesser good". Therefore, Google is good. QED. Marc

                Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!

                K Offline
                K Offline
                Kenneth Haugland
                wrote on last edited by
                #22

                I thought Godel proved that a system can't prove its own consistency unless it is inconsistent. So, Google is bad :-D

                A 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • M Marc Clifton

                  Evil serves a very important role. Without evil, we wouldn't know what good is. Thus, evil is simply a "lesser good". Therefore, Google is good. QED. Marc

                  Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!

                  D Offline
                  D Offline
                  Daniel Pfeffer
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #23

                  Marc Clifton wrote:

                  Without evil, we wouldn't know what good is. Thus, evil is simply a "lesser good".

                  That smacks of Manicheanism...

                  If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill

                  9 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • M Mark_Wallace

                    My favourites are the conspiracy theorists who say that we should have secret meetings to discuss how to deal with all the conspiracies.

                    I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

                    OriginalGriffO Offline
                    OriginalGriffO Offline
                    OriginalGriff
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #24

                    Didn't you get the email invite to the one on Tuesday?

                    Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

                    "I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
                    "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt

                    M 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • B BupeChombaDerrick

                      Google is king when it comes to violating it's own motto "Don't be evil" :laugh:

                      “Everything is simple when you take your time to analyze it.”

                      C Offline
                      C Offline
                      clientSurfer
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #25

                      Google represents everything soulless and wrong.

                      "... having only that moment finished a vigorous game of Wiff-Waff and eaten a tartiflet." - Henry Minute  "Let's face it, after Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF!" - gavindon   Programming is a race between programmers trying to build bigger and better idiot proof programs, and the universe trying to build bigger and better idiots, so far... the universe is winning. - gavindon

                      9 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • OriginalGriffO OriginalGriff

                        Didn't you get the email invite to the one on Tuesday?

                        Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

                        M Offline
                        M Offline
                        Mark_Wallace
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #26

                        What?! No, I didn't! It's a plot, isn't it?! Someone in the group is trying to get one over on me! We need to discuss this. Choose a date -- and don't tell the others!

                        I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • M Mark_Wallace

                          It's more of a guideline.

                          I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

                          S Offline
                          S Offline
                          Sascha Lefevre
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #27

                          I rather read it as an acknowledgement.. yes, it's possible; you are free to choose so, but why would we?

                          If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • S Steve Wellens

                            In the future, when we are all using driver-less Google cars and you make a statement like that, you'll die in a freak car 'accident'.

                            B Offline
                            B Offline
                            BupeChombaDerrick
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #28

                            Hehehe :laugh:

                            “Everything is simple when you take your time to analyze it.”

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • D Daniel Pfeffer

                              Marc Clifton wrote:

                              Without evil, we wouldn't know what good is. Thus, evil is simply a "lesser good".

                              That smacks of Manicheanism...

                              If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill

                              9 Offline
                              9 Offline
                              9082365
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #29

                              No, no, it doesn't. Really, it doesn't!

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • C clientSurfer

                                Google represents everything soulless and wrong.

                                "... having only that moment finished a vigorous game of Wiff-Waff and eaten a tartiflet." - Henry Minute  "Let's face it, after Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF!" - gavindon   Programming is a race between programmers trying to build bigger and better idiot proof programs, and the universe trying to build bigger and better idiots, so far... the universe is winning. - gavindon

                                9 Offline
                                9 Offline
                                9082365
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #30

                                Really? What about everything that's soulless but not wrong? Or wrong but not soulless? Or just none of the above? Cos I always thought it was just a search engine which you are entirely free to live without.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • M Mark_Wallace

                                  It's more of a guideline.

                                  I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

                                  L Offline
                                  L Offline
                                  Lost User
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #31

                                  Aye, lad!

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • K Kenneth Haugland

                                    I thought Godel proved that a system can't prove its own consistency unless it is inconsistent. So, Google is bad :-D

                                    A Offline
                                    A Offline
                                    A A J Rodriguez
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #32

                                    Kenneth Haugland wrote:

                                    I thought Godel proved that a system can't prove its own consistency unless it is inconsistent.

                                    Not even close. Consistency: X is provable, therefore X is true. Completeness: X is true, therefore X is provable. The most important of the two aspects is consistency, because if you're able to prove something that's actually false, there's no point to proving anything. The layman's version of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem claims that in any closed system there are statements that are true and unprovable, because proving them would violate consistency.

                                    K J 2 Replies Last reply
                                    0
                                    • A A A J Rodriguez

                                      Kenneth Haugland wrote:

                                      I thought Godel proved that a system can't prove its own consistency unless it is inconsistent.

                                      Not even close. Consistency: X is provable, therefore X is true. Completeness: X is true, therefore X is provable. The most important of the two aspects is consistency, because if you're able to prove something that's actually false, there's no point to proving anything. The layman's version of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem claims that in any closed system there are statements that are true and unprovable, because proving them would violate consistency.

                                      K Offline
                                      K Offline
                                      Kenneth Haugland
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #33

                                      Argue with this[^] guy instead: Stated more colloquially, any formal system that is interesting enough to formulate its own consistency can prove its own consistency iff it is inconsistent.¨

                                      A 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • B BupeChombaDerrick

                                        Google is king when it comes to violating it's own motto "Don't be evil" :laugh:

                                        “Everything is simple when you take your time to analyze it.”

                                        S Offline
                                        S Offline
                                        SeattleC
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #34

                                        Not that examples are so hard to come by, but doesn't an assertion like this deserve just a little support? What did google do that pushed you into the "evil" camp? It has to be more than just realizing that all ad brokers are evil by construction. I mean, I know why google seems evil to me... * Owning the internet verb for "to search", and adulterating search results with paid content is pretty evil. * Announcing an open source operating system for phones and then after it is accepted spending years replacing it bit-by-bit with proprietary content is pretty evil. * Conspiring with a cartel of Silicon Valley employers to tamp down wages for the geeky talent that makes it great is pretty evil. I just wondered what you woke up to.

                                        B C 2 Replies Last reply
                                        0
                                        • A A A J Rodriguez

                                          Kenneth Haugland wrote:

                                          I thought Godel proved that a system can't prove its own consistency unless it is inconsistent.

                                          Not even close. Consistency: X is provable, therefore X is true. Completeness: X is true, therefore X is provable. The most important of the two aspects is consistency, because if you're able to prove something that's actually false, there's no point to proving anything. The layman's version of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem claims that in any closed system there are statements that are true and unprovable, because proving them would violate consistency.

                                          J Offline
                                          J Offline
                                          jibalt
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #35

                                          > Not even close." Bzzt! Wrong! Gödel's second incompleteness theorem states that a consistent system cannot prove its own consistency. And of course inconsistent systems can prove anything, true or false, including their consistency. > Consistency: X is provable, therefore X is true. > Completeness: X is true, therefore X is provable. This is an odd and confusing way to state these, as it isn't clear that they are universally qualified. Better is: Consistency: For all X, if X is provable then X is true. Completeness: For all X, if X is true then X is provable. > The layman's version of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem claims that in any closed system there are statements that are true and unprovable, because proving them would violate consistency. That "because" omits a lot. Gödel's proof of his (first) Incompleteness Theorem shows that, given a consistent formal axiomatic system (capable of expressing elementary arithmetic), it is possible to construct a true statement (the "Gödel sentence" for that system) that cannot be proved. The Gödel sentence G is an encoding of the statement "G cannot be proved within the theory T". If G could be proved, that would be a contradiction, making the system inconsistent. And since it cannot be proved, it's true.

                                          A 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups