×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No "Ungoogleable" In Swedish Lexicon, Thanks to Google

timothy posted 1 year,22 days | from the english-is-more-open-source dept.

Google 207

jfruh writes "The Swedish Language Council is a semi-official, government funded body that regulates, cultivates, and tracks changes to the Swedish language. Every year it releases a list of new words that have crept into Swedish, and one of 2012's entries was 'ogooglebar' — 'ungoogleable,' meaning something that can't be found with a search engine. After Google demanded that the definition be changed and the Council add a disclaimer about Google's trademark, the Council has instead decided to remove the word from the list altogether."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

207 comments

A paradox? (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,22 days | (#43281753)

Does that mean that the word "ogooglebar" suddenly became ungoogleable?

Re:A paradox? (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | 1 year,22 days | (#43281845)

It probably was until Google made an issue out of it.

What's the phrase I'm looking for here? .......Like some performer that doesn't want her mansion photographed?

Re:A paradox? (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,22 days | (#43281983)

Google would LOVE the free publicity from all of this: "Our product is so popular that we have to fight prevent dictionaries from including it! Bing doesn't have this problem."

The way trademark law works, you have to fight very hard to keep the word from becoming generic or you lose the trademark. Google is doing what any rational trademark holder would do.

Re:A paradox? (5, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282085)

Google would LOVE the free publicity from all of this: "Our product is so popular that we have to fight prevent dictionaries from including it! Bing doesn't have this problem."

Oh, they do:

1.1 A heap or pile: formerly of stones, earth, trees, dead bodies, as well as of corn, potatoes, and the like

If you don't like it, "bing" also seems to be an onomatopoetic word for suddenness with the connotation of destructive change. I'm not quite sure if that's better for MS.

Re:A paradox? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282195)

LOL, that is a pretty funny definition I wasn't aware of. But in any event, it isn't search-related so it is no threat to Microsoft's short term plans for the word. When they move on to their genocide, they may want to make sure that they can brand their dead-body-piles as Bing-brand dead-body-bings. :)

Re:A paradox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282213)

Google would LOVE the free publicity from all of this: "Our product is so popular that we have to fight prevent dictionaries from including it! Bing doesn't have this problem."

Oh, they do:

1.1 A heap or pile: formerly of stones, earth, trees, dead bodies, as well as of corn, potatoes, and the like

If you don't like it, "bing" also seems to be an onomatopoetic word for suddenness with the connotation of destructive change. I'm not quite sure if that's better for MS.

I always thought they were named after the cherries.

Re:A paradox? (0)

nbauman (624611) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282617)

That's right. In order to protect their trademark rights, they have to act like assholes.

That's why the U.S. Olympics committee goes around making "Olympic Restaurant"s change their names. Fortunately reason prevailed for a change and Olympus, Washington didn't have to change its name.

They're worried they'll lose their trademark like Aspirin, Formica, and Refrigerator.

Xerox had a whole department sending out xeroxed legal letters to people telling them not to use Xerox as a verb.

Re:A paradox? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282665)

The way trademark law works, you have to fight very hard to keep the word from becoming generic or you lose the trademark. Google is doing what any rational trademark holder would do.

Oh, cry me a river - here's a Kleenex to wipe your nose. And while you're at it, take two Aspirin for your headache.

Re:A paradox? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282913)

I wasn't "defending" Google so much as saying that it's our own fault that companies behave this way. If you want different results, set up a different incentives system.

Re:A paradox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282789)

Right, exactly. And that's the whole big stink about this article, isn't it? I mean, I remember the other day, I was on a website called youtube.com. I think this site is owned by a company called "Google". Anyway, this company called "Google" and this other company called "Microsoft" are publicly fighting out a battle over email providing. Seems that the term "Don't get Scroogled" came up. I was more concerned with why the google company would advertise for the microsoft company. Maybe the world is just a corporation...

Re:A paradox? (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282431)

Because Google would hate the free advertising, right?

They've already ticked the boxes for defending their trademark, if they get the free publicity they had to sacrifice in order to do so anyway they'll be delighted.

Bing me a shrubbery (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281765)

Bork bork, bourdie bourdie bourdie.

I am OK with this (1, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | 1 year,22 days | (#43281771)

... seriously, we needed a word for this?

Re:I am OK with this (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282235)

No, but there are a lot of esoteric concepts that don't need words, where the creation of words allows one to communicate a complex concept full of idiosyncrasies while retaining brevity. If I had to remove "esoteric" and "idiosyncrasies" from this post, I'd probably have to double its length to say the same thing.

Good? (1)

Kenja (541830) | 1 year,22 days | (#43281775)

Perhaps I'm getting old, but I'm tiered of these new fangled words that keep geting pushed into common use.

Re:Good? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281789)

Maybe we need a new word for "get off my lawn"?

Re:Good? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281911)

Depratumate?

Re:Good? (4, Funny)

QilessQi (2044624) | 1 year,22 days | (#43281891)

Oh, come on.... you just have to embiggen your vocabulary a little. And 'ogooglebar' is a perfectly cromulent word.

Re:Good? (2)

Desler (1608317) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282007)

Or just realize he's a moron? He uses plenty of "newfangled" words and spelling that didn't exist in, say, the 17th Century. For example:

The English speach doth still encroche vpon it [Cornish], and hath driuen the same into the vttermost skirts of the shire. Most of the Inhabitants can no word of Cornish; but very few are ignorant of the English.

Richard Carew, The Survey of Cornwall (1602)

Re:Good? (1)

Desler (1608317) | 1 year,22 days | (#43281893)

What an idiot. English is constantly evolving in both words added, grammar and spelling.

If you don't want "newfangled words" than shouldn't you be writing like this?

"Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
eodcyninga, rym gefrunon,
hu ða æelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaena reatum,"

Re:Good? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281993)

If you don't want "newfangled words" than shouldn't you be writing like this?

I see, you are already writing in 2048's reformed English.

Re:Good? (4, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282257)

Perhaps I'm getting old, but I'm tiered of these new fangled words that keep geting pushed into common use.

I'll keep this brief: yes, that is just you getting old.

Re:Good? (1)

RougeFemme (2871421) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282853)

Look at the positive side. . .The new-fangled words force you to use some new/different brain cells. . .helps to keep you sharp as you get old. . .and yes you are getting old. We all are.

what about "Social Contract"? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281783)

I feel I should set up Social Contract, Inc. and remove that term from the dictionary. It does seem to have lost all meaning after all.

Google, you're cunts.

Removed (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281787)

So it's ungoogleable?!

Re:Removed (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282185)

No. But it's unlookupable in the Swedish lexicon. :-)

Vhat aboot unbingable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281801)

Yah dat cheek vas totally unbingable. I vood not heet dat vees yur dik Anders.

Unbingable (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281807)

Google suggested unbingable as a replacement.

Translation assistance needed! (1, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,22 days | (#43281811)

Does anybody know how to say "Just for that, I'm going to do my best to genericize the shit out of your precious little 'trademark', motherfucker" in Swedish?

Re:Translation assistance needed! (4, Interesting)

LongearedBat (1665481) | 1 year,22 days | (#43281953)

Bara för det, kommer jag göra mitt allra bästa att generalisera skiten ur ert lilla "varumärke", din jävel.

Re:Translation assistance needed! (1)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282555)

Hopefully, people are modding this informative. I for one have been wanting to know how to say shit and motherfucker in Swedish. Now I think I know! "Skiten" is shit and "din jävel" is motherfucker. Now, can someone provide the pronunciation?

Re:Translation assistance needed! (2, Informative)

mikael_j (106439) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282763)

"Skiten" is "the shit". "Skit" is "shit".

"Jävel/Djävel" means devil or demon so not exactly "motherfucker" but then I've never heard anyone who has Swedish as his/her native language call anyone a "mammaknullare" (I suspect mainly because in Swedish culture insulting someone's mother really isn't that big a deal while for some immigrants coming from cultures with a different view on this it seems like a good insult).

we can all do that (1)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,22 days | (#43281961)

start using google and "google"-containing words with completely generic meanings. e.g. "I used twelve search engines but couldn't find anything in all of google-dom" "I googled my way through my homework using yahoo search", etc.
 

Re:Translation assistance needed! (2)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282047)

"Just for that, I'm going to do my best to genericize the shit out of your precious little 'trademark', motherfucker"

That's actually what Google just prevented.

Re:Translation assistance needed! (0)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282273)

Because not being in a dictionary keeps people from using words. Ain't that right?

Re:Translation assistance needed! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282475)

Because not being in a dictionary keeps people from using words. Ain't that right?

No.

If Microsoft renames bing to "Google", google will sue them for trademark infringement. Microsoft could get away with tricking people in this way if they could show that google did not try to defend their trademark in any other instance. So, google has to fight this. It doesn't matter what you do on a non-commercial basis.

Re:Translation assistance needed! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282933)

No, but Google's position was that if the work WERE printed in the dictionary, it should be clearly marked as a trademark. The committee chose instead to remove the word altogether.

Re:Translation assistance needed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282281)

How dare you insult my favourite ad network!? They harvest and track me because they care! Android & ChromeOS should be on 100% of devices because Apple and Microsoft suxxx. Rawwr-raawwwrr-rawwwrr!

--tupe6666

Re:Translation assistance needed! (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282597)

Bara för att jag ska göra mitt bästa för att genericize skiten ur din dyrbara lilla "varumärke", din jävel.

Source: Google Translate

That's not cheating, right?

For those Curious (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281831)

For those curious to why Google raised a ruckus about this, there is a concept that once a word has become used in the more generic sense that the term may be used by other companies and the original company may lose their trademark rights . Xerox went through this in the 80's when Xerox was synonymous with photocopying... I remember my mom "Xeroxing" on the office machine even though it wasn't a Xerox. Xerox went through a significant ad campaign to get folks to change their behavior.

-- MyLongNickName

Re:For those Curious (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,22 days | (#43281957)

For those curious to why Google raised a ruckus about this, there is a concept that once a word has become used in the more generic sense that the term may be used by other companies and the original company may lose their trademark rights . Xerox went through this in the 80's when Xerox was synonymous with photocopying... I remember my mom "Xeroxing" on the office machine even though it wasn't a Xerox. Xerox went through a significant ad campaign to get folks to change their behavior.

-- MyLongNickName

Sandwich. Laundromat. Mac(k)intosh. Zipper. Wellingtons. Escalator. Thermos. Uhm, Xerox? This has been happening for centuries. If you study language development, this is completely normal. Even "Dog" in English is a genericized name.

Re:For those Curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282013)

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with my position or adding to it, so I will simply say that "Laundromat" and some of the other items in your list are good examples of companies losing their trademark because they did not protect the name. They were victims of their own success.

-- MyLongNickName

Re:For those Curious (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282159)

That has absolutely nothing to do with trademarks. It's simply your ordinary case of semantic widening. Sometimes it's complementary: In English, the meaning of "dog" was widened, the meaning of "hound" was narrowed. It's exactly the other way in German: While in English, "hound" is a particular kind of "dog", in German, a "Dogge" is a particular kind of "Hund".

Re:For those Curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282275)

The semantic widening that you refer to is called "generification" . It can result in the loss of the ability to enforce a trademark. You can read a bit more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Avoiding_generification though I learned about it in business law (no link available)

-- MyLongNickName

Re:For those Curious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282709)

You're nothing but a lying Googleshill. How much they paying you?
 
And there we have it folks... I'm degrading Google's trademark by genericizing their name!
 
Googleshill
Googleshill
Googleshill
 
LOLZZZZZ!!!!!!

Streisand Effect of sorts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281839)

Didn't Adobe try something similar with Photoshop, specifically saying, "'Photoshop' is not a verb."?

How thin skinned of them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281849)

This is nowhere near a trademark issue. I know the Google cult of Slashdot might hound me but come on, there has to be a limit to how much they insult your intelligence before you finally start pushing back. Had Microsoft demanded that Slashdot no longer use the broken Windows icon there would be howls of rage. This is so much more a non-issue than that it brings about a few words to mind... "petty", "over sensative", "assholish"

Re:How thin skinned of them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281931)

The difference is that this is a government funded group, hence the "semi-official" nature of the word.

-- MyLongNickName

Re:How thin skinned of them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282119)

Uh, no. "Google" is an "official" word. Why not the big shit storm then? This is petty garbage on the part of your golden calf.

Re:How thin skinned of them. (1)

AvitarX (172628) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282255)

Yes, the parody is protected and doesn't risk diluting a trademark. In fact It's specifically relating what should be generic (a window in computing) with their specific product, if anything it boosts their trademark.

If, on the otherhand there was a word to mean "used poorly thought out slides that made a presentation worse" and it was PowerPointed (i found an ms product with a non-generic name), MS would need to clarify that PowerPoint is a specific product and you could use OO impress to the same ill effect. Google runs some risk already with their name.being used generically, but to be officially recognized as such by a government body would be a real problem.for.them.

So much for "Don't be evil" (1)

second class skygod (242575) | 1 year,22 days | (#43281899)

Google is turning into Microsoft.
 

Re:So much for "Don't be evil" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281995)

If they don't defend their trademark they won't have one. It's not evil to prevent the dilution of a brand name you built.

Re:So much for "Don't be evil" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282097)

Then why didn't they fight against 'google' being put into Webster, OED, etc?

Re:So much for "Don't be evil" (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281997)

Google is turning into Microsoft.

How is preventing genericization (for lack of a better word) of your trademark evil? If they said it couldn't be found on google, and that was the official definition and then they whined, I would be more on board.

Re:So much for "Don't be evil" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282367)

Ok. So why wasn't there a big stink when Google was added to the dictionary?
 
you guys cannot defeat this. Google is being unreasonable and their claim to trademark protection is an outright lie.

Re:So much for "Don't be evil" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282879)

Being intentional ignorant and obtuse? When a company such as Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, etc. do this it is heavily criticized. Yet the Google defense squad is always out in full fotce to defend them for doing the same thing that others are blasted for. Also, as pointed out they didn't do this to Webster or the Oxford English Dictionary

Re:So much for "Don't be evil" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282015)

I fully expect a Tuppe666 reply attacking you if you get modded up to any slight degree.

Re:So much for "Don't be evil" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282861)

Trademark defense is not evil. Trademarks are a Good Thing.

Ever tried to collaborate with a programmer that doesn't think namespaces or naming rules are important. Have you ever screamed "Why the fuck do you keep reusing the same names for completely unrelated shit? Why the fuck do you keep reusing MY names?"

Strong namespaces help everyone. "Google" belongs to Google Inc. because they were the first ones to make it meaningful. Don't like it? Tough. Invent your own name for your own ideas. The world is a better place when "Google" => Google Inc and not "Google" => x | x{Google Inc, imitator1, imitator2, ...}

Re:So much for "Don't be evil" (0)

Desler (1608317) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282911)

Trademark defense is not evil. Trademarks are a Good Thing.

Until it's Apple or Microsoft doing it. Typical Google fanboi hypocrisy.

They haven't seemed to mind the verb 'to google.' (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43281969)

Only when a word is developed which indicates there is a limit to google's indexing of human knowledge do they have a complaint.

I fart in Google's general direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282043)

Google servers--and only Google servers--are denied the ability to trundle through my websites.
They are indeed ungoogleable.

The English Oxford's "Googling" term (1)

tomer (313505) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282057)

And What with the English Oxford usage for the "Googling" and "Gogleable" terms? Have Google already demanded them to remove it as well? Last time I checked it was still there. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/google?q=Googling [oxforddictionaries.com]

Re:The English Oxford's "Googling" term (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282197)

The Oxford dictionary specifies that it only applies to using Google, not just any search engine, so I would imagine it not being a threat. The problem is if googling becomes the generic term for searching.

Re:The English Oxford's "Googling" term (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282423)

Becomes? It already is the generic word for searching something online.

Re:The English Oxford's "Googling" term (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282267)

And What with the English Oxford usage for the "Googling" and "Gogleable" terms? Have Google already demanded them to remove it as well?

Google has no problem with "to google", "googling" or "googleable." They only have a problem with ungoogleable, as that implies their search engine is something less than completely omniscient. Which, if it ever becomes so, will probably make Verner Vinge's transcendently-evil "Blight" look tame in comparison.

As a long time google fan and user of their products, I am quickly losing any enthusiasm I had for their offerings, and looking into more private, and privacy protecting, alternatives. If they'll be this Orwellian (never mind Streisandesque) over something like this, only knows what they'll be doing with our private data, once they think decide they can get away with it.

Re:The English Oxford's "Googling" term (1)

AvitarX (172628) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282285)

You mean the definition that strengthens their trademark by saying "with the search engine google", even though we all know if someone was using bing (or even spokeo or 123people) they'd still call it googling.

Natural result of government power over something (4, Interesting)

J'raxis (248192) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282063)

In ancient Rome, there was a government official responsible for determining whether or not this particular year would have a "leap month" (mensis intercalaris), rather than it being based on a mathematical formula as it is nowadays. Naturally, a certain degree of power came with this ability; if a contract or a political office expired later in the year, by inserting (or not inserting) the intercalary month after February, one could effectively extend or cut short the term of those contracts or offices.

And of course, men of power or influence were eventually able to bribe, or coerce, the calendar officials into doing just that for them. Yes, the government actually had the power to tell you what time it was---and, what a surprise, this power was soon corrupted.

Maybe it's time people who speak Swedish start ignoring the Swedish language "police" and their obviously-bought (or coerced) decisions on what makes up the "real" Swedish lexicon.

Re:Natural result of government power over somethi (2)

Literaphile (927079) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282121)

That's a little dramatic, don't you think?

Sweden is not alone in having an official body to oversee their lexicon - lots of countries do it. English is somewhat of an anomaly in that way, since, unlike most other languages, it's just kind of a big melting pot for everything else.

Re:Natural result of government power over somethi (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282345)

Don't bother: he's probably canadian....

Re:Natural result of government power over somethi (5, Informative)

Kidbro (80868) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282289)

You're vastly exaggerating their "corruption" here. They're not a language police[0]. They are simply making an observation about words they notice have popped up in common usage[1]. Nobody really cares about this list, people just read it for the curiosity value.

To make this clear, the final sentences in their own comment [sprakradet.se] about the debacle translates roughly to: "Everybody's part of deciding what words are introduced in the language by choosing what words we use. If we want ogooglingsbar in the language we'll use the word and it is our use that is important - nothing a multinational company can change by coercion. The word is free![2]"

[0] If we have one, it's not them, but rather Svenska Akademien - the same folks that award the Nobel Prize in Literature.
[1] Not that I've ever actually heard ogooglingsbar it being used by anybody.
[2] A little word play there - "ordet är fritt", literally meaning "the word is free", is a Swedish expression used when you invite anybody present to speak their mind on something.

Re:Natural result of government power over somethi (2)

MiskatonicAcademic (2620997) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282645)

In addition: The head of the Swedish Academy, which is the institution that produces the most comprehensive dictionary of the Swedish language (SAOB) and also the dictionary that is generally considered most standard and normative (SAOL), recently commented that what Google is doing is actually making people more aware of the word, with the consequence that it's now much more likely that the word will make it into SAOB and perhaps even SAOL. But maybe that was Google's intention all along. I should probably also mention that the Swedish academy is an independent cultural institution and not under government control.

Re:Natural result of government power over somethi (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282935)

But this very article shows that they are not just observing. They have an agenda, and can be coursed or bought into saying that a grouping of letters is a word or that it is not a word.

And most people go by dictionaries and official sources like this. If I used ungoogleable in a high school essay I would absolutely get marks taken off unless I could produce some official documents calling it a word. This means that that word is used less, which makes a cumulative effect for it not making it into dictionaries and spell checkers.

Re:Natural result of government power over somethi (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282885)

Rome was an oligarchy. Oh, wait, so is Göögle!

Do it the Ikea Way (2)

anorlunda (311253) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282175)

Instead of googlebar make it ogööglebar.

Re:Do it the Ikea Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282823)

Instead of googlebar make it ogööglebar.

Oh! :Ogööglebar! Oh, oh!! Where's Sam Kinison [findadeath.com] when you need him? (oh... yeah.)

Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282241)

Maybe Google would have accepted it if it had been changed to "øgøøglebar"?

Hidden flattery (1)

tech.kyle (2800087) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282439)

If "Ungoogleable" means it can't be found via search engine, doesn't that imply that if anything can find it, Google can? Also, I didn't hear them complaining when their name started becoming a verb.

All you googling fsckers (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282473)

were left googly-eyed with this story

Meet Ms Streisand (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282501)

The word "ogooglebar" has no negative connotation in Swedish. It simply describes something so unusual that it cannot easily be googled. If anything, Google should feel proud that their search engine is being used as a measure.

While this was an uptight move by Google followed by a slightly cowardly response by the Swedish Language Council, it will have no effect on people's everyday language use in Sweden... but it may just draw attention to the word "ungooglable".

ogooglingsbar (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282513)

Should that not be ogooglingsbar instead. Ogooglebar feels wrong and IMO means something completly different.

oh, no, Google does no evil... (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282531)

Yeah, Google is just like any other corporation. IMHO, worse so, as Google pretends to have ethics and morals. Bah! Where is Dogpile or Bing...

Re:oh, no, Google does no evil... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282585)

Warning - you might be an idiot or you didn't RTFA. One or the other.

Re:oh, no, Google does no evil... (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | 1 year,22 days | (#43282679)

Methinks the AC is the idiot.

I did read the fraking article, you trog. Quoting the article; "Google does not own the language!" And the same thing was said in other articles this morning.

And I still stand by my comment, that a company, such as Google, that claims to have an ethical or moral compass or charter that it follows and then obviously bullies a country, is more evil than if MS were to do the same thing.

So, please, tell me why I am an idiot. And why you are a coward.

Unbingable is a word... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#43282671)

Adjective:
A person whose appearance is so objectionable that they are unable to engage in intercourse with others.

Example:
"It doesn't matter how many more beers I have, that chick is just unbingable man."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...