Posts tagged with 'ffs'

And sometimes, you just have to laugh…

  • Posted on September 17, 2009 at 11:21 am

…because if you don’t you will go pick up a Buick with your bare hands and bash your own head in with it.

Antiabortion activists have called [Susan G. Komen for the Cure] a “menace to women,” Bader reports, which, obviously, is like calling basil a menace to linguine. Their beef: Advocates for women with breast cancer don’t warn women about “the abortion/breast cancer connection.” Which, of course, is because there is no such thing.

I knew bullshit like this was going on–it’s the reason why I wouldn’t go to Curves if they paid me–but wow.

It just amazes me that people who would rather see women die of breast cancer than be able to go to Planned Parenthood for a screening can still have the balls to, in all seriousness,  call themselves “pro-life.”

Flames, side of face, etc.

  • Posted on May 8, 2009 at 10:14 am

Oh FUCK YOU, HPD.

At least when Channel 2 started poking around, the hospital went “OH SHI-” and dropped it this time, but GAAAAAH RAGE that this is even happening at all.

Oh good God not this shit again.

  • Posted on September 3, 2008 at 2:11 pm
oh-good-god-not-this-shit-again

Full disclosure: I don’t use Chrome. I don’t want Chrome. I could not possibly care less about Chrome. So I am not saying what I’m about to say because I WUB CHROME, I’m saying it because people are tripping balls about it and need to be educated.

So. Chrome’s been out what, a day? Two days? And already people are flipping their shit, all OMG GOOGLE WILL STEAL EVERYTHING YOU LOOK AT IN CHROME, because of this clause in the EULA:

By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.

Now. People who have been on Teh Intarwebs for a while might think that bit looks kind of familiar. Doesn’t it look a lot like that bit in DeviantArt’s TOS that people were flipping their shit about back in the day? Or CafePress? Or Geocities? Remember all those shitstorms? You would think by now that people understand exactly what that bit means and why it is necessary.

In fact, Google even TELLS YOU IN THE SENTENCES PRECEDING AND FOLLOWING THAT BIT that this does not mean they will steal all your shit:

You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. [that bit previously quoted] This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

People? Google HAS to include something like this in its EULA, for the same reason DA, CafePress, Geocities, and everyone else who’s had an Internet shitstorm about such a clause in its TOS/EULA has to include it.

All it does is give Google permission to display your shit in the damn browser, and if necessary, possibly not display it in the exact way you coded it to display if it will cause problems in the browser.

“BUT BUT BUT,” people are already saying, “THAT GUY, THAT GUY YOU LINKED TO, HE IS A LAWYER AND HE SAYS GOOGLE WILL DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH ALL YOUR SHIT, IT ARE FACT, HE KNOWS CAUSE OF HIS LEARNINGS.”

Yeah, well… I’m pretty sure lawyers have to go to school for a while, so I’m kind of inclined to take anything said by a “lawyer” who can’t tell the difference between “its” and “it’s” and doesn’t seem to understand how public domain works with a few 50-pound sacks of salt.  (hint: “blog post” does not necessarily equal “public domain”)

Settle down and stop spreading FUD, people.

Top