There are people who blog professionally and make their living off ad revenue. If you sell ad space on your site, you are, legally speaking, no different than someone renting out a billboard.
He didn't say "no one" he said the general gaming public, who, if you look at purchase statistics don't seem to care about DRM enough not to buy the games that have it.
Except that in this case they aren't actually, you know, DOing anything. Evil or otherwise. He's talking about a problem that the internet as a whole creates and would be equally rampant with or without Google which Google has practically no effect on.
It's not an article about Schmidt releasing some new antiprivacy system, it's just a point he's making that the internet makes your past easily accessible to everyone forever. Hell, it's more Facebook than Google who's responsible. But no. Feel free to shoot the messenger.
And look like they're endorsing a religion causing backlash from other religious groups and making them look bigoted if they don't let anyone of any faith do the exact same thing (pissing of a lot of the Christians) ? Yeah, that's probably not an avenue they want to pursue.
The problem with finals is that they're subjective by teacher. I don't have standardized testing in my country. When I took advanced grade 12 English the teacher I had was of the opinion that i order to get an A you should be able to write well enough to be a professional writer. Most other teachers require you to practically be a functional illiterate to get anything below a B-.
I ended the course with a 75. If I had any other English teacher that would have most likely translated to a high 80 - low 90. Like my grade 9-11 English marks. I was severely hampered in my ability to get into a good university because of my teachers grading system.
you are creating content they will use to make money any there is only a very small chance you'll get paid for it. Did you notice the part where they said even if you don't win they still use you product?
So... semicolons to separate steps and make it look less jumbled make it stop being solution?
Because both of those are otherwise the EXACT same set of steps.
I thought I did answer that question. Of course there are legal but immoral actions. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot, a sociopath or a liar. If I say something to someone that I know will upset for no other reason than my own amusement that is legal but immoral.
Personally I feel that morality is based on end result. If you refuse to kill someone knowing full well if you don't kill them they'll definitely kill at least 2 people I consider what you did wrong.
The problem with your "moral culpability" argument is that a lot of people don't care. I don't consider myself morally responsible for the bad things my boss/employer does.
"someone else will it anyways, but worse" is a perfectly logical way of looking at it. Again, go back to my first example. Someone wants you to murder someone (assume you're guaranteed to get away with it). If you don't do it then they'll have someone else do it who you know, for a fact, will brutally rape the person below slowly and painfully murdering them. I consider you morally responsible to kill the person yourself. You may think it's a sick, unpleasant, terrible thing to do but morality is not about doing what makes you feel good or right. It's about doing whatever will reduce the most suffering and create the most happiness.
profit doesn't trump morality. Legality does. A corporation based in a country with Draconian laws has to comply with those laws or face draconian punishment. If you aren't based in that country and you don't agree with their politics don't do business with them, but once you have a strong foothold in a country and providing salaries for that countries people you're damned in you do and you're damned if you don't
Even if the corporation only gets fined X million dollars for violating something of questionable ethics: that money has to come from somewhere and it's probably going to be in the form of cutbacks. A couple thousand people suddenly out of a job with possibly nothing to fall back on is a major moral issue as well. Is what you're doing worth impoverishing hundreds of people and severely setting back hundreds more? And if they just up and leave the country it's the same issue. Every job that corporation provided is now gone. How do you reconcile the burnden of this with the burden of potentially immoral actions?
It has nothing to do with their "right to profit", it has to do with looking after the people they employ.
And then you need to balance THAT against what good defying the government will actually do. Even if you manage to get out with minimal cost and nobody getting arrested: will someone else immediately show up and provide the exact same service but even more in line with the government and even more cut throat?
The cost, for a corporation, of breaking the law is more than just dollars in the vault.
I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that by complying with the law they company is inherently not evil. I'm saying that you can't call a company evil for doing something they are legally required to.
Again, with the exception of Nazi Germany where you HAD to sell out people who were in one of the groups slated for death I can't think of many laws make you evil by sheer compliance with them.
If the government's law officials request or order Google to hand over information, that's not evidence that Google doesn't respect user privacy, it's merely evidence that Google is being law abiding citizens and helping the police track down a criminal. I would do the same if they asked me to and I had the ability to help. Now if Google went out of their way to help the government track down people who had unpopular views unconstitutionally that could be considered evil but that's falling into the Nazi laws territory which I feel is too extreme to use as a comparison for anything Google is currently engaged in.
Free pass if they're doing something they have to do to comply with a law. Yes. honestly the only laws that complying with can put you in "evil" territory that I can think of were the companies forced to help the Nazis with the holocaust and if your government has reached that point I don't fault anyone for doing what they have to to survive.
What laws are you thinking of specifically that you have to be evil not to break?
I question that a corporation complying with the law, even at the expense of its customers, can be considered evil.
A civilian rejecting an unjust law perhaps, but a corporation on Google's scale I feel has an obligation to its employees and shareholders such that the penalty/risk of going against a law on moral grounds compared to the potential gain is not something they can do. It might not be GOOD for them to do it but I don't think you can go so far as to consider the action EVIL. Especially since a corporation consisting of people can have members replaced by somewhat unsavory means until they DO comply with whatever law is so unjust that obeying it would brand them evil.
Slashdot Mirror
There are people who blog professionally and make their living off ad revenue. If you sell ad space on your site, you are, legally speaking, no different than someone renting out a billboard.
No, it's not. You put a means if income generation on your site, they treat you like an income generating business.
He didn't say "no one" he said the general gaming public, who, if you look at purchase statistics don't seem to care about DRM enough not to buy the games that have it.
14-21. Depends where you live.
Well then, all he has to do is prove that a video game was marketed to children and that they never warned him it was addictive.
People like to think buying Tom Jones is rare, but really, it's not unusual.
Except that in this case they aren't actually, you know, DOing anything. Evil or otherwise. He's talking about a problem that the internet as a whole creates and would be equally rampant with or without Google which Google has practically no effect on.
It's not an article about Schmidt releasing some new antiprivacy system, it's just a point he's making that the internet makes your past easily accessible to everyone forever. Hell, it's more Facebook than Google who's responsible. But no. Feel free to shoot the messenger.
I though they also had to remove the word "Nazi" so they can fight bad guys who clearly ARE Nazis but they can't say it.
You can't sell a game with Nazis in it in Germany. It's illegal.
And look like they're endorsing a religion causing backlash from other religious groups and making them look bigoted if they don't let anyone of any faith do the exact same thing (pissing of a lot of the Christians) ? Yeah, that's probably not an avenue they want to pursue.
The problem with finals is that they're subjective by teacher. I don't have standardized testing in my country. When I took advanced grade 12 English the teacher I had was of the opinion that i order to get an A you should be able to write well enough to be a professional writer. Most other teachers require you to practically be a functional illiterate to get anything below a B-.
I ended the course with a 75. If I had any other English teacher that would have most likely translated to a high 80 - low 90. Like my grade 9-11 English marks. I was severely hampered in my ability to get into a good university because of my teachers grading system.
THAT is why standardized testing is a good thing.
You can't educate someone into someone smart. You can only educate them into a more verbose idiot.
All the terrible narrative pacing of video games with none of the gameplay or freedom of choice! Shit. Can I get a video game based jarhead too?
it's still stupid even if you win. Getting lucky for doing something stupid doesn't make you less stupid.
you are creating content they will use to make money any there is only a very small chance you'll get paid for it. Did you notice the part where they said even if you don't win they still use you product?
my math may be a little rusty but isn't equality exactly what '=' is for?
Am I the only one who read that as "herp derpature"? Because really, that's an equally valid headline.
4+3+2=x+2 4+3+2-2=x 4+3=x 7=x.
"4+3+2=x+2; 4+3+2-2=x; 4+3=x; 7=x"
So... semicolons to separate steps and make it look less jumbled make it stop being solution?
Because both of those are otherwise the EXACT same set of steps.
In his defense, you're the ones who decided not to give your country a proper name.
I thought I did answer that question. Of course there are legal but immoral actions. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot, a sociopath or a liar. If I say something to someone that I know will upset for no other reason than my own amusement that is legal but immoral.
Personally I feel that morality is based on end result. If you refuse to kill someone knowing full well if you don't kill them they'll definitely kill at least 2 people I consider what you did wrong.
The problem with your "moral culpability" argument is that a lot of people don't care. I don't consider myself morally responsible for the bad things my boss/employer does.
"someone else will it anyways, but worse" is a perfectly logical way of looking at it. Again, go back to my first example. Someone wants you to murder someone (assume you're guaranteed to get away with it). If you don't do it then they'll have someone else do it who you know, for a fact, will brutally rape the person below slowly and painfully murdering them. I consider you morally responsible to kill the person yourself. You may think it's a sick, unpleasant, terrible thing to do but morality is not about doing what makes you feel good or right. It's about doing whatever will reduce the most suffering and create the most happiness.
profit doesn't trump morality. Legality does. A corporation based in a country with Draconian laws has to comply with those laws or face draconian punishment. If you aren't based in that country and you don't agree with their politics don't do business with them, but once you have a strong foothold in a country and providing salaries for that countries people you're damned in you do and you're damned if you don't
Even if the corporation only gets fined X million dollars for violating something of questionable ethics: that money has to come from somewhere and it's probably going to be in the form of cutbacks. A couple thousand people suddenly out of a job with possibly nothing to fall back on is a major moral issue as well. Is what you're doing worth impoverishing hundreds of people and severely setting back hundreds more? And if they just up and leave the country it's the same issue. Every job that corporation provided is now gone. How do you reconcile the burnden of this with the burden of potentially immoral actions?
It has nothing to do with their "right to profit", it has to do with looking after the people they employ.
And then you need to balance THAT against what good defying the government will actually do. Even if you manage to get out with minimal cost and nobody getting arrested: will someone else immediately show up and provide the exact same service but even more in line with the government and even more cut throat?
The cost, for a corporation, of breaking the law is more than just dollars in the vault.
I still want to know what laws you are referring to that require the violation of human rights to not break.
I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that by complying with the law they company is inherently not evil. I'm saying that you can't call a company evil for doing something they are legally required to.
Again, with the exception of Nazi Germany where you HAD to sell out people who were in one of the groups slated for death I can't think of many laws make you evil by sheer compliance with them.
If the government's law officials request or order Google to hand over information, that's not evidence that Google doesn't respect user privacy, it's merely evidence that Google is being law abiding citizens and helping the police track down a criminal. I would do the same if they asked me to and I had the ability to help. Now if Google went out of their way to help the government track down people who had unpopular views unconstitutionally that could be considered evil but that's falling into the Nazi laws territory which I feel is too extreme to use as a comparison for anything Google is currently engaged in.
Free pass if they're doing something they have to do to comply with a law. Yes. honestly the only laws that complying with can put you in "evil" territory that I can think of were the companies forced to help the Nazis with the holocaust and if your government has reached that point I don't fault anyone for doing what they have to to survive.
What laws are you thinking of specifically that you have to be evil not to break?
I question that a corporation complying with the law, even at the expense of its customers, can be considered evil.
A civilian rejecting an unjust law perhaps, but a corporation on Google's scale I feel has an obligation to its employees and shareholders such that the penalty/risk of going against a law on moral grounds compared to the potential gain is not something they can do. It might not be GOOD for them to do it but I don't think you can go so far as to consider the action EVIL. Especially since a corporation consisting of people can have members replaced by somewhat unsavory means until they DO comply with whatever law is so unjust that obeying it would brand them evil.