And Then They Took Away Our Words...

reply to post by Krakatoa


Please edit that.

beezzer is a trademarked word licensed by Beezzer Corp. Inc. LLC.

(It's also a slang term on the island nation of Palau that means, "Your mother needs to shave")

So about noon I went to refresh this thread and a funny thing happened on my way to....

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


3 months sounds about right for an immigrant family to acclimate to a new native language. That's how long it took my family tree to "forget" how to speak Lithuanian. On the other side, native american tribes in No. America lost their languages in about 3 generations...

Hungary is a good example too. Because the only reason to speak Hungarian is if you were born there or are going on a visit. It's not a business or diplomatic language.

Hungarian language could totally die out. With a population of 10,000,000 I don't think the Hungarian language stands much of a chance going against a new-world-order style global lingua.

Originally posted by Hefficide

So about noon I went to refresh this thread and a funny thing happened on my way to....

Word!

reply to post by jimmiec


No need. They made google put in a backdoor for them to use.

Google isn't going anywhere for a long time, if ever; they are here to stay and influence our technology for the long term. Very few corporations operate ethically, and Google is no exception. What caused the downfall of MySpace, AOL, etc, was poor foundation; they failed to accurately predict where the web was headed and could not evolve with it.

With that being said, Google is a deplorable company, but there is no way in hell they are going to collapse anytime soon. I see Apple and Microsoft falling before Google does.

Is Google really trying to take over the world with a search engine? Do you think they can do it? Would you help them?

add link : www.guardian.co.uk...

Yeah, I think Google must have had a bowl of stupid for breakfast. Their own name, Google, is the product of taking bits of words that one likes because they sound catchy, and in this case, happen to have a little added significance.

Page and Brin originally nicknamed their new search engine "BackRub", because the system checked backlinks to estimate the importance of a site. Eventually, they changed the name to Google, originating from a misspelling of the word "googol", the number one followed by one hundred zeros, which was picked to signify that the search engine wants to provide large quantities of information for people.

en.wikipedia.org...

Googol

The term was coined in 1938 by 9-year-old Milton Sirotta, nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner.

No, Hef, I don't think that you are over reacting, I think that this move on the part of Google is absurd. Good catch.

Two words: The Borg

reply to post by Hefficide
I think you're overreacting on this just a bit Heff. Google isn't trying to take our words away. People do a good enough job of that on their own. They were just being boneheaded about what Sweden was trying to do. You said it best....... it was a bad business move.

I see this as Google getting too big for their britches. Big corporations have that habit. They get a big head about their position in whatever field they're in, and they start to think they're the only game in town. They may be the biggest, but they're not the only ones. ATS went down for 20 hours. Being as big as they are, it sent shockwaves through the "community". But there are other like sites. They may suck by comparison, but there are alternatives that people can and will use if sites like this are to their liking. Google needs to realize this as well. Bing is a major player and you do have search engines that are based in, and tailored to, specific parts of the world. What if Google went down for 20 hours? You would simply go elsewhere. Better still, what would happen if the entire internet system went down for 20 hours? Information would still be transferred, it would just take longer is all.

So no......Google isn't trying to take our words away. For pete's sake, what do you think Google bases all of it's algorithms off of? The words you, I and everyone else types into search bars. If Google doesn't want to recognize certain words, all a person has to do is find a different word that means the same thing and continue their search. Search engines like Google are now so entrenched in society that people seem to think they control every single aspect of the web. People seem to forget that the only reason Google is able to do what it does when searching for things is because of the people who type in query's in the first place. It's like our good old ATS here......it's dependent upon user-generated content, but unlike ATS, Google is getting into the habit of biting the hand that feeds them.

Bad idea Google.

As I recall, google meant a number with x number of zero's after it. Sorry I've not been able to find that number as when I did a search, all I could find was the Google corporations entries.

Google may be a trademark, but before that it was a word used in language. So while a trademark in the capital sense, it is also a word and cannot be co-opted in the lower case sense.

In mu estimation ogooglebar is a word that does not infringe on Google's rights. I suppose this is great fodder for Lawyers.

Ooops, someone tell Hoover to get in there as I can't be bothered to say "vacuuming". Everyone I know says: "I hoovered my living room". Also in German, we have adopted the word "Tempo" [most famous paper tissue brand name] for paper tissues in general, even if they were made by someone different [as in: "Do you have a Tempo?" instead of "Do you have a paper tissue?"]

There are many other instances where that happened and nobody cares. Google are idiots, it's free advertising. Tch...

Google™ didnt fall far from the Apple™ tree.

Originally posted by kdog1982
The next thing you know,the will get rid of this super-secret code word from Mary Poppins................

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

When that happens,the end of times is nigh.

Is that the correct spelling..?

reply to post by Hefficide


They can't have it both ways. They can't be ok with using the word "google" as a verb to look something up on the internet and then NOT be ok with putting an "un" in front of it meaning to not be able to look something up on the internet. It's a bad move on thier part.... sounds like something facebook would do.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hefficide

 

This strikes right at the heart of the current copyright and internet freedom discussion.

I am a firm believer that you cannot copyright the sky, or trees, or a mountain. They are part of our daily landscape. They pervade our reality and are always there, front and center. Who invented them is immaterial to the fact that they represent our environment, the world we live in, our reality.

The same can be said of the Nike swoosh. Or the Happy Birthday song. And I would posit that Google has now found itself in that same category (what with all the Googlecars driving around taking photos of my house).

I am ashamed that we have painted ourselves into this corner as a civilization. Next thing you know, the oil companies will try to tax us on the air we breathe, since they are regulated to help clean it up.

I could not agree more with the above, To to OP great thread and I will be here for the ride.

Regards, Iwinder

We have become hooked on using brand names, even brands which we do not use, as generic terms. For example, we hoover the carpets. We use kleenex to blow our noses. We use sellotape to stick wrapping paper, etc. We should be using the words "vaccuum" or "tissue" or "sticky tape".

They are doing us a favour by disallowing their brand name to be used as a generic term. Unsearchable is fine. Ungoogleable sounds horrible anyway.

reply to post by Hefficide


AP is really on a roll these days. See link below:

blog.ap.org...

Taken from the link:

illegal immigration- Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.

Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.

reply to post by Hefficide


Well, it is kind of a neat story, but do you not think that you´re blowing stuff a little out of proportion here?

It is hardly the end of speech, you know?

I can understand google´s decision, although they have created far more attention to the whole thing by blocking it.

It´s not really a classy move, but it is not the end of the world either.