I get to pay a fortune so I bug my home, send any conversation I have to Google, and in return I get some gimmicks, which will work for as long as Google deems that service useful (and as we know, they have a really stellar record of long term support of their projects).
What I didn't read in the whole article is what kind of pressurizing medium they have on me that I would allow this to happen, but I guess at the very least they would be able to kill my firstborn if I don't.
In other words: Who in their sane mind would WANT something like this???
Would you please stop making vague suggestions and allegations? I'm tired of guessing what you might want to say, that game gets really old really fast. Yes, I understand, it's an easy way of "arguing" by making your opponent argue for both sides, but aside of lazy it's also dishonest.
Let's assume for a moment that they have the same deals running. Not saying anything would result in losing customers because everyone would assume they are under a gag order and thus can't tell you that they're handing over your data. So they lie to you. What's to be lost? Either it doesn't come up. Then they retained you as a customer. Or it gets out that they lied. Then they'll lose you as a customer. Which is exactly what would happen if they didn't lie to you.
The obviously financially sound strategy is to lie to your customer.
Are we refurbishing old Soviet jokes again? Like the one where Brezhnev did a factory inspection and was told by the proud workers that they didn't have boiler scale in five years. And dear Leonid said "I know you're doing what you can with the little you have, but I will do what I can to make sure that you will have much more boiler scale very soon!"
So what's obvious is that a lot more men are in IT than women. Yes, this is true. What is debatable is the reason. Your claim, if I got you right, is that there is some sort of boys club with a no-girls-allowed sign on the front door is going on. My claim is that women prefer to go into other fields because you can see the exact opposite in areas like biology, medicine and pharmacy.
I'm not arguing that humans are immune to social influences, I am saying that I do not believe that women are so insecure that they allow those social influences to dictate their life. Because we all are subject to social influence, and it seems your argument is that men are capable of dealing with this while women are not, and this is simply something I do most decidedly NOT consider obvious.
"Obviously" is usually used when something is anything but obvious but the person using it wants to create the impression that you're a fool if you don't share their opinion, so excuse me if I react in my usual self and claim that your claim is anything but obvious and I'm too stupid to see how it is obvious, so I guess to make the idiot over here understand what's so obvious to everyone, you'd actually have to explain the obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
Mostly 'cause the other side didn't have a chance to commit any yet. Give him time, you might think differently after the first four years.
I get to pay a fortune so I bug my home, send any conversation I have to Google, and in return I get some gimmicks, which will work for as long as Google deems that service useful (and as we know, they have a really stellar record of long term support of their projects).
What I didn't read in the whole article is what kind of pressurizing medium they have on me that I would allow this to happen, but I guess at the very least they would be able to kill my firstborn if I don't.
In other words: Who in their sane mind would WANT something like this???
Would you please stop making vague suggestions and allegations? I'm tired of guessing what you might want to say, that game gets really old really fast. Yes, I understand, it's an easy way of "arguing" by making your opponent argue for both sides, but aside of lazy it's also dishonest.
Because if I pay, I get to decide that they stay there.
And I get to set the safety standards, and, bluntly, whether they arrive at Mars or blow up on the launch pad...
Maybe unlike men, women noticed that there's way more money to be made in medicine, pharmacy and biotech?
Since it must have been before I studied IT, when was it around the same number of women and men that studied information technology?
So what? Look around the US and you'll find Berlin, Moscow, Paris... actually, you'll find more Moscows in the US than in Russia!
We're about to get this too. Can't let a feeling be hurt, can we?
Ok, I bite. What did I make up?
Gag orders cannot, but the market can.
Let's assume for a moment that they have the same deals running. Not saying anything would result in losing customers because everyone would assume they are under a gag order and thus can't tell you that they're handing over your data. So they lie to you. What's to be lost? Either it doesn't come up. Then they retained you as a customer. Or it gets out that they lied. Then they'll lose you as a customer. Which is exactly what would happen if they didn't lie to you.
The obviously financially sound strategy is to lie to your customer.
So you go after Smith&Wesson if a bank gets robbed?
Or for bigger, Rhode Islands, or for even bigger Texas.
And since nothing is bigger than Texas, at least for Texans, there is no other area unit necessary.
Are we refurbishing old Soviet jokes again? Like the one where Brezhnev did a factory inspection and was told by the proud workers that they didn't have boiler scale in five years. And dear Leonid said "I know you're doing what you can with the little you have, but I will do what I can to make sure that you will have much more boiler scale very soon!"
What for? In the end the English will just invade it and call it New England, only for the US to eventually occupy it.
No, I wish I had lots of money so I could send some other asses to Mars.
So what's obvious is that a lot more men are in IT than women. Yes, this is true. What is debatable is the reason. Your claim, if I got you right, is that there is some sort of boys club with a no-girls-allowed sign on the front door is going on. My claim is that women prefer to go into other fields because you can see the exact opposite in areas like biology, medicine and pharmacy.
I'm not arguing that humans are immune to social influences, I am saying that I do not believe that women are so insecure that they allow those social influences to dictate their life. Because we all are subject to social influence, and it seems your argument is that men are capable of dealing with this while women are not, and this is simply something I do most decidedly NOT consider obvious.
Hold it right there, the iPhone is more than 7mm thick? The ancient iPod I happen to have at home is thinner, and that DOES have a headphone jack.
So much for the "we have to remove the headphone jack to make it slimmer" bullshit.
They're too busy fighting microaggressions to care about the big ones.
Nope. But that was to be expected. I mean, seriously, they were looking for intelligence in people using Yahoo mail.
I can understand that. Who needs is more than them.
Cop:
And why are you receiving phone calls from J. Edgar Hoover?
Wadsworth:
J. Edgar Hoover?
Cop:
That's right. The head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Colonel Mustard:
Why is J. Edgar Hoover on your phone?
Wadsworth:
I don't know. He's on everyone else's, why shouldn't he be on mine?
That's true. No administration before lied so transparently.
"Obviously" is usually used when something is anything but obvious but the person using it wants to create the impression that you're a fool if you don't share their opinion, so excuse me if I react in my usual self and claim that your claim is anything but obvious and I'm too stupid to see how it is obvious, so I guess to make the idiot over here understand what's so obvious to everyone, you'd actually have to explain the obvious.
Oh hi, it's my biggest fan again, I was already worried for a moment that you didn't write for a week, how're you doing?
Work back when I made the last comment, now insomnia.