Imagine the ratio of expense of "one" of these to a beowulf cluster of x86s created to provide equivalent computing power. Just imagine!! Hmmm...on second thought it's probably only like 1 to 2.5 or 3...
Although I do admit to be very confused (in general), I feel that when taking a common definition of morality, that is, principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour along with the common practice of attributing certain actions and behaviors to corporations, my statements do not appear "out of context". Rather, it seems that your personal use of the term "morality" has been limited in some ineffable (by me at least) manner to exclude corporations. You say that they "exhibit a tendency towards some set of values", yet you do not seem to see that if that "tendency" stems from principles distinguishing "good" and "bad" (for the corporation) with the "values" being those distinctions, then you are actually saying that they do have morality, in the common sense of the word. Granted that you may look upon corporations purely mechanistically, in which case your statement would only be an analogous (and rather poor) way of speaking. Akin to saying that rain in temperate zones has a tendecy to help farmers, or that your car has a tendency to help you get your job done, as it is totally accidental to the subject that it "benefit" the object.
Selfish/self-centered/pragmatic sets of values/beliefs are still morality, in the common sense of the word.
That quote references Sergey's role as "the moral compass" for the company. It strikes me that it is way better to have a single individual acting in this role than a committee, or than letting morality be determined by the currents of popular opinion, and here is why I think that:
If it is granted that no morality will be accepted universally as good, but rather individuals will judge the good and evil of someone else's morality according to their own, then it seems reasonable that we don't expect Google to never be considered evil by anyone. Rather, what seems most important about about a corporation trying to have a morality that is independent of (and governs over) their inherent purely capitalistic (not a bad thing) motives/actions, is that their morality remain consistent.
Consistency, and the reasonable expectations it produces, seems to be at the core of developing any relationship that requires trust. For example, I (like most people) avoid making friends with people who believe that it is a good thing to steal things of great value from their friends, but I also avoid making friends with people who flip-flop on their "stealing valuables" stance. That's pretty basic, right? What's relevant here, though, is that I would much rather that my friends/acquaintances/etc be consistent about their beliefs, than being a flip-flopper, that way if I can adjust my own expectations and actions accordingly (i.e. lock up the valuables when they're coming over).
Well, when it comes to businesses, by default I expect them to always be trying to do whatever they can to make the most money. And I have no problem with this - I love the free-market. But, I have an additional attraction to companies that try to restrict their capitalistic tendencies for the sake of the betterment of society and the individuals that compose it, especially the more I agree with their definition of betterment, or "good". However, it seems that one of the better ways for a company to be consistent in its morality would be for that morality to be defined by one person. Although a single person can develop contrary/inconsistent positions within their own morality no matter how hard they're trying to be consistent, this likelihood of inconsistency generally increases all the more, the more individuals you add to the mix.
It would be absurd of me to expect Google's morality to be identical with mine. There will be plenty of things we disagree about. As long as they're consistent, though, I'll at least feel confident in supporting them when I agree with them, and not, when I don't.
As an octogenarian who has seen the negative effects of censorship across various media over many decades, I find your desire to absolutely deny peoples' right to express themselves in a particular way to be not only naive, but also -- oooh, look at the bird feeder, that hummingbird is back!!
USB 10.0: Low-Speed (it went so fast it went back in time and got USB 1.0's designator)
No worries about this, though, as far as we can tell only The Borg will be able to achieve this level of technology. We'll be stuck at USB 9.99999...
... However, insurance, banks, cell phone providers and ISPs are all highly dependent on monthly (ie. repeat) services.
And yet, somehow the far majority of the most successful (i.e. largest) of these companies (BofA, Wells Fargo, WaMu, Verizon, ATT, Sprint, etc) are almost ALL considered to have terrible customer service when it comes to dealing with their current customers. There is nothing like the oily appeasement of the sales people, when you're trying to get a fraudulent (or mistaken) charge removed from your account. Everyone knows this. Yet how could this be, if keeping their current customers was the MOST important thing? Simple. It's not. They've realized that it's cheaper to invest in marketing gimmicks to pull in new customers than it is to invest in the quality of their customer service. There are some rare exceptions to the big-ticket/recurring-charges companies. Apple is one of them. And they succeed because they built a culture "It just works" around their products, and that culture requires a higher level of customer service.
I would more want testicular fortitude in the candidate. Although the implication that Congress makes someone who opposes them too sick-to-their-stomach to continue is interesting...
Tell that to all the:
Insurance companies
Funeral Homes
Car dealerships
Realtors
Banks
Cell phone service provider
Internet service provider
or ANY big-ticket item/service vendor
"In a recent modification of their assessment of the effects of the policy, the Indiana BMV has now estimated that 8 residents will be disappointed about the inability to smile..."
That's actually nonsense. Most addicts will be able to have children before the addiction kills them.
Of course most of them will. But a some of them will die due to drug related stupidity (OD, car accident, diseases contracted, et al). AND their offspring (even if they are still alive) will have a higher incidence of death before reproductive age, due to higher rates of congenital disorders, a more dangerous home environment, drug-related stupidity on the part of their parents, et al.
And THEN you get to weigh in the increased likelihood of their offspring becoming addicts, and the continued cycle. Also, note that addicts are more likely than any other group to procreate with other addicts...this would seem to condense any genetic predisposition towards addiction (and its consequences).
ACTRA Spokeman: Listen buddy, give us more money, or else... Canadian ISP Spokesman #1: I'm not your buddy, friend. SOCAN Spokesman: He's not your friend, guy. Canadian ISP Spokesman #2: He's not your guy, buddy...
*3 weeks later* ACTRA Spokesman: (addressing the rest of Canada) We got exactly what we wanted, fellow Canadians! Now all of you will pay to produce even more talented Canadian artists like Celine Dion, William Shatner...and Celine Dion!! Canadians:...
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine the ratio of expense of "one" of these to a beowulf cluster of x86s created to provide equivalent computing power. Just imagine!! Hmmm...on second thought it's probably only like 1 to 2.5 or 3...
And everyone knows that Scientologists without Xeno can't get anywhere.
Or maybe, "Dine! With Zinfandel!"
mod parent up (funny)
Your need to tell the mods HOW to mod the GP speaks volumes...
Although I do admit to be very confused (in general), I feel that when taking a common definition of morality, that is, principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour along with the common practice of attributing certain actions and behaviors to corporations, my statements do not appear "out of context". Rather, it seems that your personal use of the term "morality" has been limited in some ineffable (by me at least) manner to exclude corporations. You say that they "exhibit a tendency towards some set of values", yet you do not seem to see that if that "tendency" stems from principles distinguishing "good" and "bad" (for the corporation) with the "values" being those distinctions, then you are actually saying that they do have morality, in the common sense of the word. Granted that you may look upon corporations purely mechanistically, in which case your statement would only be an analogous (and rather poor) way of speaking. Akin to saying that rain in temperate zones has a tendecy to help farmers, or that your car has a tendency to help you get your job done, as it is totally accidental to the subject that it "benefit" the object.
Selfish/self-centered/pragmatic sets of values/beliefs are still morality, in the common sense of the word.
ezzzD55J passes to ezzzD55J, who sets it for ezzzD55J, who spikes it!! And the moderators go WILD!!!
As an octogenarian I find your lack of experience and your obsession with Apple products to be -- huh, where did that soup come from?
A trackball!? You are a glutton for exercise! I just stare at my monitor exerting my will upon the cursor. Productivity is overrated.
That quote references Sergey's role as "the moral compass" for the company. It strikes me that it is way better to have a single individual acting in this role than a committee, or than letting morality be determined by the currents of popular opinion, and here is why I think that:
If it is granted that no morality will be accepted universally as good, but rather individuals will judge the good and evil of someone else's morality according to their own, then it seems reasonable that we don't expect Google to never be considered evil by anyone. Rather, what seems most important about about a corporation trying to have a morality that is independent of (and governs over) their inherent purely capitalistic (not a bad thing) motives/actions, is that their morality remain consistent.
Consistency, and the reasonable expectations it produces, seems to be at the core of developing any relationship that requires trust. For example, I (like most people) avoid making friends with people who believe that it is a good thing to steal things of great value from their friends, but I also avoid making friends with people who flip-flop on their "stealing valuables" stance. That's pretty basic, right? What's relevant here, though, is that I would much rather that my friends/acquaintances/etc be consistent about their beliefs, than being a flip-flopper, that way if I can adjust my own expectations and actions accordingly (i.e. lock up the valuables when they're coming over).
Well, when it comes to businesses, by default I expect them to always be trying to do whatever they can to make the most money. And I have no problem with this - I love the free-market. But, I have an additional attraction to companies that try to restrict their capitalistic tendencies for the sake of the betterment of society and the individuals that compose it, especially the more I agree with their definition of betterment, or "good". However, it seems that one of the better ways for a company to be consistent in its morality would be for that morality to be defined by one person. Although a single person can develop contrary/inconsistent positions within their own morality no matter how hard they're trying to be consistent, this likelihood of inconsistency generally increases all the more, the more individuals you add to the mix.
It would be absurd of me to expect Google's morality to be identical with mine. There will be plenty of things we disagree about. As long as they're consistent, though, I'll at least feel confident in supporting them when I agree with them, and not, when I don't.
As an octogenarian who has seen the negative effects of censorship across various media over many decades, I find your desire to absolutely deny peoples' right to express themselves in a particular way to be not only naive, but also -- oooh, look at the bird feeder, that hummingbird is back!!
USB 10.0: Low-Speed (it went so fast it went back in time and got USB 1.0's designator)
No worries about this, though, as far as we can tell only The Borg will be able to achieve this level of technology. We'll be stuck at USB 9.99999...
... However, insurance, banks, cell phone providers and ISPs are all highly dependent on monthly (ie. repeat) services.
And yet, somehow the far majority of the most successful (i.e. largest) of these companies (BofA, Wells Fargo, WaMu, Verizon, ATT, Sprint, etc) are almost ALL considered to have terrible customer service when it comes to dealing with their current customers. There is nothing like the oily appeasement of the sales people, when you're trying to get a fraudulent (or mistaken) charge removed from your account. Everyone knows this. Yet how could this be, if keeping their current customers was the MOST important thing? Simple. It's not. They've realized that it's cheaper to invest in marketing gimmicks to pull in new customers than it is to invest in the quality of their customer service. There are some rare exceptions to the big-ticket/recurring-charges companies. Apple is one of them. And they succeed because they built a culture "It just works" around their products, and that culture requires a higher level of customer service.
2.0, actually
...I just hope he has the intestinal fortitude...
I would more want testicular fortitude in the candidate. Although the implication that Congress makes someone who opposes them too sick-to-their-stomach to continue is interesting...
Tell that to all the:
Insurance companies
Funeral Homes
Car dealerships
Realtors
Banks
Cell phone service provider
Internet service provider
or ANY big-ticket item/service vendor
...and I will nominate your post as Most Humorous Post That Is Mocking A Bad Science Analogy.
Dude, nutjobs and weirdos come in all shapes, sizes, hairstyles, and UIDs.
But here they're mostly round and large with beards and 3 digit UIDs.
I am not sure whether this deserves +funny, or a "ZOMG whooosh you id10t1!11!!"...and the not knowing is killing me.
And don't forget all the photoresist material...which is why I've been forced to use Sally's supply of it all week!
"In a recent modification of their assessment of the effects of the policy, the Indiana BMV has now estimated that 8 residents will be disappointed about the inability to smile..."
Are you sure they don't just pretend to enjoy it, then, after it's over, they sigh, roll over, and quietly cry themselves to sleep?
That's actually nonsense. Most addicts will be able to have children before the addiction kills them.
Of course most of them will. But a some of them will die due to drug related stupidity (OD, car accident, diseases contracted, et al). AND their offspring (even if they are still alive) will have a higher incidence of death before reproductive age, due to higher rates of congenital disorders, a more dangerous home environment, drug-related stupidity on the part of their parents, et al.
And THEN you get to weigh in the increased likelihood of their offspring becoming addicts, and the continued cycle. Also, note that addicts are more likely than any other group to procreate with other addicts...this would seem to condense any genetic predisposition towards addiction (and its consequences).
No. It's a statement Nietzsche made to rile up dogmatists...does it bother you?
He's not your buddy, guy!
ACTRA Spokeman: Listen buddy, give us more money, or else... ...
Canadian ISP Spokesman #1: I'm not your buddy, friend.
SOCAN Spokesman: He's not your friend, guy.
Canadian ISP Spokesman #2: He's not your guy, buddy...
*3 weeks later*
ACTRA Spokesman: (addressing the rest of Canada) We got exactly what we wanted, fellow Canadians! Now all of you will pay to produce even more talented Canadian artists like Celine Dion, William Shatner...and Celine Dion!!
Canadians: