A lot of traffic and parking tickets piss me off because I am not guilty by any stretch of the imagination. In some cases, the cop has even told me that. When a cop says, "Well it kinda looked like you did", fuck that cop. That is just getting taxes for the state at my expense. Of course they don't factor in the increased cost of my insurance either.
For speeding tickets (I have a couple in the last decade or so), I just pay them. I know I was speeding. However, on all of the others, I have demanded a jury trial. Guess what happens?
Nothing. Every single lawyer for the state drops the case. They literally cannot afford to take the case to trial. Not over a ticket that will make them $200-$500. Jurors get paid more than that for a gas allowance.
Demanding a jury trial just for traffic tickets would crash the system.
I think you're wrong there as well. 100 years ago, doctors were also financially incented to perform unnecessary procedures, etc. because they got paid for work performed
To a much, much, much, less degree though. Without medical insurance the doctor could only get as much money as the patient had on them. Considering this was well before lines of credit, and basically, access to financial resources orders of magnitude higher than what a patient had, I have a hard time buying that argument.
The doctor ran the real risk of killing the patient with unnecessary procedures with no financial gain.
As far as "quackery" goes, yes, that was rampant. However, I would be loathe to call those people doctors. If anything it was harder to find a real doctor back then.
It's tempting to think that the idealized model of the country doctor, making house visits, black bag in hand, was an inherently more honest and trustworthy person. But I don't think there's any evidence of that.
I would like to think that there is, but I see your point. I was never trying to compare the efficacy of doctors in the past versus the present, just their character.
Maybe I am romanticizing the country doctors of the past. However, I see a real detriment and harm to the doctor/patient relationship with the ridiculous amounts of money and incentives in medicine today.
The question was trust. With the context of post I did not believe it was a question about confidence in their abilities and knowledge, but about their character.
Considering that, I take trust to mean if I think the doctor truly has my best interests at heart, and is not simply working towards that next fancy junket at Pharma's expense, or just ordering tests because he gets a cut and/or needs to maximize his/her return from my medical insurance.
In that context, I do believe that doctors a 100 years ago had their decisions much less influenced by money.
These days doctors are under enormous pressure, ridiculous levels of debt, burdened by skyrocketing malpractice insurance (doctors have been fleeing my state), and are very much pressured by money and resources.
The fact is there was much less outside influence acting upon my doctor 100 years ago, versus today. That's why I would trust them more.
Don't worry... your mom should be down soon with some Hot Pockets and WoW juice and you feel right as rain. You won't even think about that DST stuff anymore.
Re:I have an organ donor card...
on
When Are You Dead?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Would you trust a doctor from 100 years ago today?
More than a doctor today, much more so.
From the summary, it says each person is worth 2 million dollars in a 20 billion per year industry. I would say that can cause some bias. Maybe, even a little unethical behavior. I remember reading recently about an operation in China where people were being harvested.
If we say an average doctor's salary is 200k per year that means each person they certify creates 10 years worth of salary to be distributed around the hospital staff and surrounding industries. Even if the doctor himself is not being pressured to certify brain death, others in the hospital certainly are under pressure.
So... yeah... I would trust a doctor from 100 years ago a little bit more since I think they would be less pressured by finances and their disgusting influence on ethics in medicine.
When did the holodeck ever work as planned? I assume its software was designed by the great, great, great, great, great grandson of the guy who thought IE6 was a good idea.
Seriously, no-one thought of sandboxing the holodeck? Even after the first 10 times the ship got pwned by it?
Seriously, no-one thought of sandboxing the holodeck? Even after the first 10 times the ship got pwned by it?
Of course they thought about it. They even tried it a couple of times, but it interfered with downloading porn programs off questionable subspace connections.
While Engineering strongly objected to the lack of security (because they had their own secret holodeck with dedicated processing and comms), the commanding officers and security decided it was in the best interests of "ship morale" to allow the holodecks unfettered communications with the rest of the ships systems to continue.
I don't think that is what he is saying at all. Basically, don't try to turn a can opener into a rocket launcher, is what he is trying to say.
He does have a point. The form factor alone, combined with several other technical flaws (or challenges) such as processing power and battery life, make using cell phones as anything other than a phone, just plain foolish. We have ended up with very expensive devices that don't do any particular function really well, have a piss poor form factor for web surfing (in standard page layouts) and applications.
As far as the tablet goes, I disagree. Tablets do have a form factor suited for gaming and applications. That extra size allows for more processing power and battery life.
I understand the desire though. One device. Dock it at home, have a different form factor and inputs, take it with me, have different functions, etc. Multiple devices really suck. Going back to the days of a cell phone, Palm, MP3 player, etc. is not something I want to do.
The biggest gripe in the article is a problem plaguing Android right now. That is inconsistency in the hardware and platform itself. It seems to be less consistent and reliable than a PC as far as software and drivers go. Gaming is a bleeding edge industry anyways, and Apple has always had that benefit of homogeneous hardware. I don't really see the point in griping about it. If it does not make financial sense to develop on it, stop doing it. That will send a message to the manufacturers to get their shit together and start working with a standard a little more seriously.
At this point I am ready to go back to a clam shell phone. I really, really don't want something that operates so terribly because it is trying to be too many things at once. While I would like one device, I am thinking that a tablet and a phone might just be the way to go here.
The form factor just sucks and trying to slam more and more power into it to do something else in a mediocre fashion that is also just a losing battle as far as battery life is concerned seems rather pointless to me.
So it's not that I don't want to try something new. We have. I call it a failure. Now, let's try something different. Perhaps, modular devices and flexible displays that expand. Allow me to just take a very very small phone device with me, and choose when to dock into a tablet. Retinal displays, or displays built into my glasses. Basically anything other than the form factor and inputs on the standard smartphones today. They just plain suck to me.
I thought the dancing scene with the techno music was awesome.
You probably could have just used that scene, the highway scene (also awesome), shortened the crap out of the journey to the Architect and made a longer 2nd movie.
Personally, I don't know why they don't do that. I remember the full version of Dune. For something that awesome, a 3 hour movie does not bother me at all.
Bench warrants are issued by courts and judges. Last time I checked those do not cross jurisdictional lines, and certainly do not apply to different states.
I have had the same issues with some tickets in the past in different states and I just ignored it and threw it in the trash. Have one that is in debt collection now that is over 10 years old. Good luck.
It's just a game with those bastards. They know they can fuck with you because you are out of state and don't have the time and money to fight it. Glorified tax collectors for their county with guns.
P.S - Before anybody posts to tell me that I am wrong to do so, those tickets were highly, highly questionable. Not a simple 10 mph over the limit type ticket where I know I screwed up. I have always paid tickets where I knew I was wrong and got caught speeding.
For some reason I'm not quite clear on, your suggestion has made me think of _Star Trek IV_, when Scotty trades the formula for transparent aluminium for plexiglass to make the aquarium for the whales since plexiglass is the best substitute for transparent aluminium. I still to this day have not been able to fathom why they couldn't just use regular, non-transparent aluminium, or whatever metal the Klingon ships inner structure was made from to make their tank. Why did it need to be transparent? I don't know and I don't know why this conversation so strongly reminds me of that.
Because....... it's a movie?
The average movie goer is not a terribly sophisticated person. Just slightly smarter than the average person watching a commercial. Keep in mind, that average is carefully calculated by some very smart people in Hollywood that understand the lowest common denominator and how to use that as an average. I know, but try to keep up.
Most people will think of whales and where to put them, and that means an aquarium, no different than gold fish. Aquariums have transparent sides to them so you can see the little fishies. Suspending disbelief would be shattered in that movie without the transparent walls.
Going back in time in a beat up POS Klingon Warbird? Nope.
Having to go back in time because some aliens, who act like they are drunk belligerent assholes, who you have never seen before, and are looking for their girlfriend in your apartment at 2am, refuse to leave till they speak to the "whales" of all creatures? Nope. Just peachy.
That Spock, with that POS Klingon Warbird's massive computing power (these are barbarians remember), can make the "calculations" for "Time Warp"? Of course not. Let's not be silly.
Aquarium walls we can't see through? Hold on... this movie is bullshit.:)
He's not "a little odd", he's openly homosexual. Why do you have such a problem with a man inserting his penis into another man's (willing) asshole? Or two men performing an ass-to-mouth 69 on each other?
I have always found him a little bit odd as well, and that was before I even knew he was gay. Odd is not bad, at least I don't take it to be that way. Besides, hes fucking Sulu. He rocks man.
As for your ass-to-mouth 69 comment..... I think somebody would flunk "spatial mechanics" on the Starfleet entrance exam. I suggest you get a couple of dolls and try to work out your "theory" there.
Find me a great actor that is not a little odd anyways....
If it's the side of the planet hosting the brain-drain apps and content like Facebook and much of reality teevee, people will be more concerned about that then a nuclear armed Iran.
People don't care about higher level problems like asteroids or the environment. Take away the bread and circuses.....
There is no FUD. To say that the user is the product and the advertisers are the customer is just a statement of fact, and not a value judgement. Whether or not they are used as talking points by Microsoft is irrelevant, and I have never actually heard that. Saying they are is nonsensical, and very hypocritical on Microsoft's part, because they are trying to do the exact same thing. Provide free services to obtain a large user base to further attract advertising revenue. It's a business model, not a conspiracy.
Google is paid by the advertisers, which makes them the customer. The reason why they are paid is because they strive to create services and an environment that attracts the most users as possible.
However, Google services the advertisers first. It's not that complicated to understand. Google has access to vast amounts of information, a lot of it very personal and sensitive. It is most likely anonymized to outsiders, but nonetheless, exists as a product that is sold to advertisers as part of an overall marketing package. Where the conspiracy may lie is Google giving non-anonymous data over to intelligence agencies of various governments. That would not surprise me, and with the Patriot Act, how could they even talk about it? Once again, not FUD against Google, because all major search engines and service providers are in the same boat.
Of course Google will continue to service the user in the best way possible, but that is a means toward an end. That end being servicing their customers.
I don't believe that Google will put themselves in harms way by pissing off their user base too much. It's always going to be a balancing act. Keeping users happy, and providing valuable products for the advertisers.
My personal decision to refuse to use Google services for anything, and a business decision to never use Google docs, has more to do with my understanding of privacy, the dangers of having personal information in the hands of 3rd parties, and the contracts that govern them. It's not that I think Google is evil.
It is a concern to me that Google continues to enhance and expand their information gathering activities simply because I feel that privacy and anonymity are two of three critical tools for a strong and lasting free society to prosper. The other one is a well armed populace. That is obviously a philosophical and political position I hold.
None of that is FUD against Google specifically. I have never said that Google is screwing you over, only that it could. Therein lies the danger. Act according to your own risk assessment and beliefs.
As for my business decisions, you can't run a business relying on a company where you are not the customer. Free services have no obligations for anything. Paid Google Docs is another matter altogether, and my concern is that some companies still can't afford to do this with sensitive information unless there are some very strict contracts between them and Google where it becomes expressly spelled out what Google's obligations are. For the record, I have just as much of a problem with Office 365.
Can we please put a stop to this FUD? You're just repeating Microsoft talking points.
Just because it may be Microsoft talking points does not mean that those points are incorrect, or that they are merely intended as FUD.
Google does not own you. The only way they get access to your eyeballs is with your consent.
Most people never imply that when they say that consumers are the "product". Google is not the only company that does this. There are a ton of other companies out there which provide lead generation services and sell existing databases of leads and demographics.
In that context, the consumer is the product. Specifically, the information about them. Some people don't like the privacy implications about that, which is why every business generally has a privacy policy now. Instead of it just being unsaid, it needs to be said now.
The average user of Google services is the product, the advertisers are the consumer.
The advertisers are not customers, they are suppliers.............The advertiser is willing to pay a penny for you to consume an ad.
That is a contradiction. Which is it? Customers pay money. That's how it works. Otherwise they are not customers. You have buyers and sellers, products, and end users. You can tell which is which by following the money.
Your mental and semantic gymnastics aside, suppliers don't typically pay retail stores. That is like Walmart charging Chinese companies and manufacturers for the privilege of selling their product. That is not how it works (kickbacks aside). Walmart pays for the product from the suppliers, and then delivers it to the consumer in their retail stores.
How does Google operate?
They charge advertisers to put advertisements in front of users. In addition, to a host of other marketing products in which, the people are not charged, but the marketers and advertisers are charged.
This is not FUD, but merely a fact of how Google operates.
The reason why it is always brought up, is because corporations act in the best interests of themselves of the shareholders. Who are they going to satisfy first and foremost (within reason)? The Advertisers because that is where the money comes from one way or the other. Saying otherwise is just strange.
There are extremely few products that a regular consumer can purchase from Google that does not have to do with advertising. Google docs is one that I can think of. Perhaps they may sell mail services too, although I really could not say.
So in the end, people really are the product that Google sells. We don't need hyperbole to imply slavery, loss of freedom, etc. It simply means that Google sells data about you (anonymized or not), and makes its business by putting advertisements in front of you.
To think they put your best interests ahead of their own, or their customers (the advertisers), is just being naive. Do I think they will go too far and jeopardize their relationship with their users to make more money? Perhaps, but unlikely anytime soon. It's a fine line between complete loss of privacy, and giving marketers everything they want. Google will pay attention to what the average user expects for privacy and act accordingly, and will act within the laws that apply to them. A difficult task considering they are a global company and need to operate in some pretty freedom unfriendly countries.
In order for me to buy into your post I would need to believe that Google is going to ignore the people giving them the money to favor people that do not. Sorry, but that makes no sense.
This beers for you? Props for my homies while spilling out malt liquor? Dedicated his next toxic cigarette?
You can be physically addicted to both alcohol and cigarettes. No so with marijauna.
Of course... there is also the fact that alcohol and cigarettes kill vastly more people each year and are a tremendous burden on the economy with health care costs.... but you keep right at it with the baseless denigration of the poster simply because of his preference on how he relaxes and achieves an altered state.
There is no difference between the raising a glass of wine/beer and toasting this man, and raising a bowl to do the same. The sentiment is the same.
Not every vehicle is available for lease on good terms either. That's worth pointing out was well. Leasing only makes sense when it is a fair deal. Plenty of horrible leases out there. I have had friends in dealerships look at me straight in the face and say I would get screwed on that lease and to just go with a different vehicle.
I did own hybrid vehicles for awhile because I was willing to pay that premium as a sacrifice to help the environment and push the technology further. Not everyone wants to do that.
Personally, I think I am doing my part already with the purchase of those hybrid vehicles, of which, I lost money on one of them when selling it before the economic collapse. Right now I have a very efficient vehicle under lease, simply because it is on good terms. At this point I can't afford to pay that premium for electric or hybrids. It's a purchase to make me feel like I am doing something for the environment, which I am, but it makes no economic sense.
The exception being my Prius. I sold that for a profit in CA, which included factoring in every expense I ever had for the car (gas, car washes, insurance).
While I can no longer afford my ideals with respect to a car, I can make a difference in many other ways and reduce my energy consumption and foot print across the board.
Slashdot Mirror
That only assumes it goes to trial. They don't.
A lot of traffic and parking tickets piss me off because I am not guilty by any stretch of the imagination. In some cases, the cop has even told me that. When a cop says, "Well it kinda looked like you did", fuck that cop. That is just getting taxes for the state at my expense. Of course they don't factor in the increased cost of my insurance either.
For speeding tickets (I have a couple in the last decade or so), I just pay them. I know I was speeding. However, on all of the others, I have demanded a jury trial. Guess what happens?
Nothing. Every single lawyer for the state drops the case. They literally cannot afford to take the case to trial. Not over a ticket that will make them $200-$500. Jurors get paid more than that for a gas allowance.
Demanding a jury trial just for traffic tickets would crash the system.
I think you're wrong there as well. 100 years ago, doctors were also financially incented to perform unnecessary procedures, etc. because they got paid for work performed
To a much, much, much, less degree though. Without medical insurance the doctor could only get as much money as the patient had on them. Considering this was well before lines of credit, and basically, access to financial resources orders of magnitude higher than what a patient had, I have a hard time buying that argument.
The doctor ran the real risk of killing the patient with unnecessary procedures with no financial gain.
As far as "quackery" goes, yes, that was rampant. However, I would be loathe to call those people doctors. If anything it was harder to find a real doctor back then.
It's tempting to think that the idealized model of the country doctor, making house visits, black bag in hand, was an inherently more honest and trustworthy person. But I don't think there's any evidence of that.
I would like to think that there is, but I see your point. I was never trying to compare the efficacy of doctors in the past versus the present, just their character.
Maybe I am romanticizing the country doctors of the past. However, I see a real detriment and harm to the doctor/patient relationship with the ridiculous amounts of money and incentives in medicine today.
The question was trust. With the context of post I did not believe it was a question about confidence in their abilities and knowledge, but about their character.
Considering that, I take trust to mean if I think the doctor truly has my best interests at heart, and is not simply working towards that next fancy junket at Pharma's expense, or just ordering tests because he gets a cut and/or needs to maximize his/her return from my medical insurance.
In that context, I do believe that doctors a 100 years ago had their decisions much less influenced by money.
These days doctors are under enormous pressure, ridiculous levels of debt, burdened by skyrocketing malpractice insurance (doctors have been fleeing my state), and are very much pressured by money and resources.
The fact is there was much less outside influence acting upon my doctor 100 years ago, versus today. That's why I would trust them more.
Don't worry... your mom should be down soon with some Hot Pockets and WoW juice and you feel right as rain. You won't even think about that DST stuff anymore.
Would you trust a doctor from 100 years ago today?
More than a doctor today, much more so.
From the summary, it says each person is worth 2 million dollars in a 20 billion per year industry. I would say that can cause some bias. Maybe, even a little unethical behavior. I remember reading recently about an operation in China where people were being harvested.
If we say an average doctor's salary is 200k per year that means each person they certify creates 10 years worth of salary to be distributed around the hospital staff and surrounding industries. Even if the doctor himself is not being pressured to certify brain death, others in the hospital certainly are under pressure.
So... yeah... I would trust a doctor from 100 years ago a little bit more since I think they would be less pressured by finances and their disgusting influence on ethics in medicine.
When did the holodeck ever work as planned? I assume its software was designed by the great, great, great, great, great grandson of the guy who thought IE6 was a good idea.
Seriously, no-one thought of sandboxing the holodeck? Even after the first 10 times the ship got pwned by it?
Seriously, no-one thought of sandboxing the holodeck? Even after the first 10 times the ship got pwned by it?
Of course they thought about it. They even tried it a couple of times, but it interfered with downloading porn programs off questionable subspace connections.
While Engineering strongly objected to the lack of security (because they had their own secret holodeck with dedicated processing and comms), the commanding officers and security decided it was in the best interests of "ship morale" to allow the holodecks unfettered communications with the rest of the ships systems to continue.
I don't think that is what he is saying at all. Basically, don't try to turn a can opener into a rocket launcher, is what he is trying to say.
He does have a point. The form factor alone, combined with several other technical flaws (or challenges) such as processing power and battery life, make using cell phones as anything other than a phone, just plain foolish. We have ended up with very expensive devices that don't do any particular function really well, have a piss poor form factor for web surfing (in standard page layouts) and applications.
As far as the tablet goes, I disagree. Tablets do have a form factor suited for gaming and applications. That extra size allows for more processing power and battery life.
I understand the desire though. One device. Dock it at home, have a different form factor and inputs, take it with me, have different functions, etc. Multiple devices really suck. Going back to the days of a cell phone, Palm, MP3 player, etc. is not something I want to do.
The biggest gripe in the article is a problem plaguing Android right now. That is inconsistency in the hardware and platform itself. It seems to be less consistent and reliable than a PC as far as software and drivers go. Gaming is a bleeding edge industry anyways, and Apple has always had that benefit of homogeneous hardware. I don't really see the point in griping about it. If it does not make financial sense to develop on it, stop doing it. That will send a message to the manufacturers to get their shit together and start working with a standard a little more seriously.
At this point I am ready to go back to a clam shell phone. I really, really don't want something that operates so terribly because it is trying to be too many things at once. While I would like one device, I am thinking that a tablet and a phone might just be the way to go here.
The form factor just sucks and trying to slam more and more power into it to do something else in a mediocre fashion that is also just a losing battle as far as battery life is concerned seems rather pointless to me.
So it's not that I don't want to try something new. We have. I call it a failure. Now, let's try something different. Perhaps, modular devices and flexible displays that expand. Allow me to just take a very very small phone device with me, and choose when to dock into a tablet. Retinal displays, or displays built into my glasses. Basically anything other than the form factor and inputs on the standard smartphones today. They just plain suck to me.
I thought the dancing scene with the techno music was awesome.
You probably could have just used that scene, the highway scene (also awesome), shortened the crap out of the journey to the Architect and made a longer 2nd movie.
Personally, I don't know why they don't do that. I remember the full version of Dune. For something that awesome, a 3 hour movie does not bother me at all.
There are different warrants for arrest.
Bench warrants are issued by courts and judges. Last time I checked those do not cross jurisdictional lines, and certainly do not apply to different states.
I have had the same issues with some tickets in the past in different states and I just ignored it and threw it in the trash. Have one that is in debt collection now that is over 10 years old. Good luck.
It's just a game with those bastards. They know they can fuck with you because you are out of state and don't have the time and money to fight it. Glorified tax collectors for their county with guns.
P.S - Before anybody posts to tell me that I am wrong to do so, those tickets were highly, highly questionable. Not a simple 10 mph over the limit type ticket where I know I screwed up. I have always paid tickets where I knew I was wrong and got caught speeding.
For some reason I'm not quite clear on, your suggestion has made me think of _Star Trek IV_, when Scotty trades the formula for transparent aluminium for plexiglass to make the aquarium for the whales since plexiglass is the best substitute for transparent aluminium. I still to this day have not been able to fathom why they couldn't just use regular, non-transparent aluminium, or whatever metal the Klingon ships inner structure was made from to make their tank. Why did it need to be transparent? I don't know and I don't know why this conversation so strongly reminds me of that.
Because....... it's a movie?
The average movie goer is not a terribly sophisticated person. Just slightly smarter than the average person watching a commercial. Keep in mind, that average is carefully calculated by some very smart people in Hollywood that understand the lowest common denominator and how to use that as an average. I know, but try to keep up.
Most people will think of whales and where to put them, and that means an aquarium, no different than gold fish. Aquariums have transparent sides to them so you can see the little fishies. Suspending disbelief would be shattered in that movie without the transparent walls.
Going back in time in a beat up POS Klingon Warbird? Nope.
Having to go back in time because some aliens, who act like they are drunk belligerent assholes, who you have never seen before, and are looking for their girlfriend in your apartment at 2am, refuse to leave till they speak to the "whales" of all creatures? Nope. Just peachy.
That Spock, with that POS Klingon Warbird's massive computing power (these are barbarians remember), can make the "calculations" for "Time Warp"? Of course not. Let's not be silly.
Aquarium walls we can't see through? Hold on... this movie is bullshit. :)
I have a feeling that you are the one who works at ACME and is responsible for all of Wile E Coyote's (Super Genius) failures.
No. It was found in 1985 by a joint American-French expedition.
As far as filming it, Cameron *may* have been the first to do so.
He's not "a little odd", he's openly homosexual. Why do you have such a problem with a man inserting his penis into another man's (willing) asshole? Or two men performing an ass-to-mouth 69 on each other?
I have always found him a little bit odd as well, and that was before I even knew he was gay. Odd is not bad, at least I don't take it to be that way. Besides, hes fucking Sulu. He rocks man.
As for your ass-to-mouth 69 comment..... I think somebody would flunk "spatial mechanics" on the Starfleet entrance exam. I suggest you get a couple of dolls and try to work out your "theory" there.
Find me a great actor that is not a little odd anyways....
If it's the side of the planet hosting the brain-drain apps and content like Facebook and much of reality teevee, people will be more concerned about that then a nuclear armed Iran.
People don't care about higher level problems like asteroids or the environment. Take away the bread and circuses.....
I heard you can hide a gun in a Fleshlight and it'll get through.
Yeah. Duh. Who wants to actually inspect the inside of one of those? Do you want the job?
It's not the size of the asteroid, but its motion to the ocean.
No. It doesn't.
There is no FUD. To say that the user is the product and the advertisers are the customer is just a statement of fact, and not a value judgement. Whether or not they are used as talking points by Microsoft is irrelevant, and I have never actually heard that. Saying they are is nonsensical, and very hypocritical on Microsoft's part, because they are trying to do the exact same thing. Provide free services to obtain a large user base to further attract advertising revenue. It's a business model, not a conspiracy.
Google is paid by the advertisers, which makes them the customer. The reason why they are paid is because they strive to create services and an environment that attracts the most users as possible.
However, Google services the advertisers first. It's not that complicated to understand. Google has access to vast amounts of information, a lot of it very personal and sensitive. It is most likely anonymized to outsiders, but nonetheless, exists as a product that is sold to advertisers as part of an overall marketing package. Where the conspiracy may lie is Google giving non-anonymous data over to intelligence agencies of various governments. That would not surprise me, and with the Patriot Act, how could they even talk about it? Once again, not FUD against Google, because all major search engines and service providers are in the same boat.
Of course Google will continue to service the user in the best way possible, but that is a means toward an end. That end being servicing their customers.
I don't believe that Google will put themselves in harms way by pissing off their user base too much. It's always going to be a balancing act. Keeping users happy, and providing valuable products for the advertisers.
My personal decision to refuse to use Google services for anything, and a business decision to never use Google docs, has more to do with my understanding of privacy, the dangers of having personal information in the hands of 3rd parties, and the contracts that govern them. It's not that I think Google is evil.
It is a concern to me that Google continues to enhance and expand their information gathering activities simply because I feel that privacy and anonymity are two of three critical tools for a strong and lasting free society to prosper. The other one is a well armed populace. That is obviously a philosophical and political position I hold.
None of that is FUD against Google specifically. I have never said that Google is screwing you over, only that it could. Therein lies the danger. Act according to your own risk assessment and beliefs.
As for my business decisions, you can't run a business relying on a company where you are not the customer. Free services have no obligations for anything. Paid Google Docs is another matter altogether, and my concern is that some companies still can't afford to do this with sensitive information unless there are some very strict contracts between them and Google where it becomes expressly spelled out what Google's obligations are. For the record, I have just as much of a problem with Office 365.
You seem to be very confused.
Can we please put a stop to this FUD? You're just repeating Microsoft talking points.
Just because it may be Microsoft talking points does not mean that those points are incorrect, or that they are merely intended as FUD.
Google does not own you. The only way they get access to your eyeballs is with your consent.
Most people never imply that when they say that consumers are the "product". Google is not the only company that does this. There are a ton of other companies out there which provide lead generation services and sell existing databases of leads and demographics.
In that context, the consumer is the product. Specifically, the information about them. Some people don't like the privacy implications about that, which is why every business generally has a privacy policy now. Instead of it just being unsaid, it needs to be said now.
The average user of Google services is the product, the advertisers are the consumer.
The advertisers are not customers, they are suppliers.............The advertiser is willing to pay a penny for you to consume an ad.
That is a contradiction. Which is it? Customers pay money. That's how it works. Otherwise they are not customers. You have buyers and sellers, products, and end users. You can tell which is which by following the money.
Your mental and semantic gymnastics aside, suppliers don't typically pay retail stores. That is like Walmart charging Chinese companies and manufacturers for the privilege of selling their product. That is not how it works (kickbacks aside). Walmart pays for the product from the suppliers, and then delivers it to the consumer in their retail stores.
How does Google operate?
They charge advertisers to put advertisements in front of users. In addition, to a host of other marketing products in which, the people are not charged, but the marketers and advertisers are charged.
This is not FUD, but merely a fact of how Google operates.
The reason why it is always brought up, is because corporations act in the best interests of themselves of the shareholders. Who are they going to satisfy first and foremost (within reason)? The Advertisers because that is where the money comes from one way or the other. Saying otherwise is just strange.
There are extremely few products that a regular consumer can purchase from Google that does not have to do with advertising . Google docs is one that I can think of. Perhaps they may sell mail services too, although I really could not say.
So in the end, people really are the product that Google sells. We don't need hyperbole to imply slavery, loss of freedom, etc. It simply means that Google sells data about you (anonymized or not), and makes its business by putting advertisements in front of you.
To think they put your best interests ahead of their own, or their customers (the advertisers), is just being naive. Do I think they will go too far and jeopardize their relationship with their users to make more money? Perhaps, but unlikely anytime soon. It's a fine line between complete loss of privacy, and giving marketers everything they want. Google will pay attention to what the average user expects for privacy and act accordingly, and will act within the laws that apply to them. A difficult task considering they are a global company and need to operate in some pretty freedom unfriendly countries.
In order for me to buy into your post I would need to believe that Google is going to ignore the people giving them the money to favor people that do not. Sorry, but that makes no sense.
Now that you mention it, I thought I heard something screaming, "Help Meeeee!" in the background.
I don't know if that's funny, interesting or insightful.
Oh, it's all three.
What happened to that Canada I remember, eh?
FTFY
Troll? Really why?
Did it remind you of a childhood filled with swirlies and atomic wedgies?
So what should he have said?
This beers for you? Props for my homies while spilling out malt liquor? Dedicated his next toxic cigarette?
You can be physically addicted to both alcohol and cigarettes. No so with marijauna.
Of course... there is also the fact that alcohol and cigarettes kill vastly more people each year and are a tremendous burden on the economy with health care costs.... but you keep right at it with the baseless denigration of the poster simply because of his preference on how he relaxes and achieves an altered state.
There is no difference between the raising a glass of wine/beer and toasting this man, and raising a bowl to do the same. The sentiment is the same.
One may ask why the wheel should be invented in the first place.
Because it impressed the cave bitches?
Sorry, that was fire.
I think the point still remains though.
Not every vehicle is available for lease on good terms either. That's worth pointing out was well. Leasing only makes sense when it is a fair deal. Plenty of horrible leases out there. I have had friends in dealerships look at me straight in the face and say I would get screwed on that lease and to just go with a different vehicle.
I did own hybrid vehicles for awhile because I was willing to pay that premium as a sacrifice to help the environment and push the technology further. Not everyone wants to do that.
Personally, I think I am doing my part already with the purchase of those hybrid vehicles, of which, I lost money on one of them when selling it before the economic collapse. Right now I have a very efficient vehicle under lease, simply because it is on good terms. At this point I can't afford to pay that premium for electric or hybrids. It's a purchase to make me feel like I am doing something for the environment, which I am, but it makes no economic sense.
The exception being my Prius. I sold that for a profit in CA, which included factoring in every expense I ever had for the car (gas, car washes, insurance).
While I can no longer afford my ideals with respect to a car, I can make a difference in many other ways and reduce my energy consumption and foot print across the board.