In fairness, you can't call the creation "museum" a museum. A Museum is dedicated to educating it's visitors. The creation "museum" is, as far as I'm aware, the only museum with the goal of making it's visitors dumber and less informed.
No that's not what I said at all. Try improving your reading comprehension. I explicitly said "small guy" to exclude the big player who obviously have enough resources to force their way in.
I didn't make a bad analogy (nor was it my analogy to begin with), you just choose to push it further than it should go (no analogy is perfect, and it's unreasonable to expect it to be), willfully ignoring the obvious caveat about "small guy". That's your fault, not mine.
No, they don't. That's why I said "some small guy", because that explicitly excludes (the obviously not small) Microsoft. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
I was being facetious with my choice of "midget porn". There could be any number of embarrassing things or just things you don't want your co-workers to know about that aren't blocked by safe search.
...right up until the point you are searching Google at work and it starts flashing up ads for midget porn based on that mailing list you signed up for in your personal gmail account.
I don't think a single privacy policy is the problem. Clearly that'll be a good thing. I think what people are objecting to is that the policy in question will mix your data from each of those Google services together which (somewhat surprisingly) they don't currently do. So now your search history will be linked to your e-mail and to your YouTube viewing. [Some] people are uncomfortable with that.
I don't disagree with the sentiment of your post, but it's more like if your restaurant with pitiful service was the biggest restaurant in town and no other restaurants could ever hope to get a foothold in your town. Every now and again we hear some small guy trying to create a new search engine and then we never hear from them again. Today, unless you are a major corporation with deep pockets, the chances of breaking into the web search business is nearly zero. The other services they provide maybe somewhat more competitive, but often not by much.
Having said that, I only have a gmail account with Google. I don't sign in to Google for searching or have accounts on any of their other services (at least I think, it's hard to keep track of what they do own nowadays).
Not to mention their web bugs that will track which websites you visit just in case you decide to create a FB account later. Even if you've never visited Facebook in your life.
Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. I'd wager some lower down sales guy pitched the booth to Pirate Bay and then later on somebody higher up notice and shit a brick when they realized who they'd just sold a booth to. I expect the original sales guy is updating his resume now.
5. There are 5 words before the part they bolded to the word "in", "in the United States, which". Hence start your bolding 5 words earlier. I only bolded the 4 relevant words. Do try and keep up!
It's a shame you didn't also bold the five words before the part you did bold. The part that said "in the United States". So your worldwide comparison is irrelevant compared to the part YOU decided to quote.
Yes they have their hatred of Microsoft in common. Something which is matched only by their hatred for each other. Steve Jobs would turn in his grave if Apple hooked up with Google again after the whole iPhone/Android thing.
You are still missing the point. This story is about the future, not the present. The owner of the widget factory might go out and buy a gadget, but when that gadget was built via automation, that doesn't create jobs. In the extreme you have a situation where consumption (the thing that currently drives capitalism) fails to create any jobs. And in that situation you have a major social problem.
You don't have to get all the way to the extreme case before this becomes a problem either.
That's not the definition of a meme. You fail on the second sentence of your post and the rest of your post would be just irrelevant even if it wasn't just drivel.
The problem is that the business owner isn't spending the extra $500 on a gadget, or at least, maybe he is, but he only needs so many gadgets, and he's getting an extra $500 / widget. So in the end, he accumulates more and more money while the guy who lost he's job has still lost his job.
Slashdot Mirror
On come on. A simple mistake when writing something real quick clearly makes me as dumb as a creationist. Fuck you.
Well done. Have a fucking cookie.
In fairness, you can't call the creation "museum" a museum. A Museum is dedicated to educating it's visitors. The creation "museum" is, as far as I'm aware, the only museum with the goal of making it's visitors dumber and less informed.
No that's not what I said at all. Try improving your reading comprehension. I explicitly said "small guy" to exclude the big player who obviously have enough resources to force their way in.
I didn't make a bad analogy (nor was it my analogy to begin with), you just choose to push it further than it should go (no analogy is perfect, and it's unreasonable to expect it to be), willfully ignoring the obvious caveat about "small guy". That's your fault, not mine.
No, they don't. That's why I said "some small guy", because that explicitly excludes (the obviously not small) Microsoft. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Is Microsoft some small guy? Are you fucking dense?
Right, but the point is that Google are making their products less usable if you have to opt-out of stuff or keep two separate accounts going.
We're not talking about restaurants. We are talking about search engines.
I was being facetious with my choice of "midget porn". There could be any number of embarrassing things or just things you don't want your co-workers to know about that aren't blocked by safe search.
And absolutely nobody will use it. Which is hardly "breaking in".
...right up until the point you are searching Google at work and it starts flashing up ads for midget porn based on that mailing list you signed up for in your personal gmail account.
I don't think a single privacy policy is the problem. Clearly that'll be a good thing. I think what people are objecting to is that the policy in question will mix your data from each of those Google services together which (somewhat surprisingly) they don't currently do. So now your search history will be linked to your e-mail and to your YouTube viewing. [Some] people are uncomfortable with that.
I don't disagree with the sentiment of your post, but it's more like if your restaurant with pitiful service was the biggest restaurant in town and no other restaurants could ever hope to get a foothold in your town. Every now and again we hear some small guy trying to create a new search engine and then we never hear from them again. Today, unless you are a major corporation with deep pockets, the chances of breaking into the web search business is nearly zero. The other services they provide maybe somewhat more competitive, but often not by much.
Having said that, I only have a gmail account with Google. I don't sign in to Google for searching or have accounts on any of their other services (at least I think, it's hard to keep track of what they do own nowadays).
Not to mention their web bugs that will track which websites you visit just in case you decide to create a FB account later. Even if you've never visited Facebook in your life.
in part due to the fact that Sony is run by gigantic cocks while Valve isn't.
So Valve is run by tiny cocks? I feel sorry for Gabe's wife.
Because Gabe strikes me as the type of guy you could go get a beer with
Beer? You sure that ain't cool-aid?
Nice troll, troll.
Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. I'd wager some lower down sales guy pitched the booth to Pirate Bay and then later on somebody higher up notice and shit a brick when they realized who they'd just sold a booth to. I expect the original sales guy is updating his resume now.
5. There are 5 words before the part they bolded to the word "in", "in the United States, which". Hence start your bolding 5 words earlier. I only bolded the 4 relevant words. Do try and keep up!
It's a shame you didn't also bold the five words before the part you did bold. The part that said "in the United States". So your worldwide comparison is irrelevant compared to the part YOU decided to quote.
Yes they have their hatred of Microsoft in common. Something which is matched only by their hatred for each other. Steve Jobs would turn in his grave if Apple hooked up with Google again after the whole iPhone/Android thing.
You are correct. Microsoft retired the whole team a couple of years ago.
You are still missing the point. This story is about the future, not the present. The owner of the widget factory might go out and buy a gadget, but when that gadget was built via automation, that doesn't create jobs. In the extreme you have a situation where consumption (the thing that currently drives capitalism) fails to create any jobs. And in that situation you have a major social problem.
You don't have to get all the way to the extreme case before this becomes a problem either.
That's not the definition of a meme. You fail on the second sentence of your post and the rest of your post would be just irrelevant even if it wasn't just drivel.
The problem is that the business owner isn't spending the extra $500 on a gadget, or at least, maybe he is, but he only needs so many gadgets, and he's getting an extra $500 / widget. So in the end, he accumulates more and more money while the guy who lost he's job has still lost his job.