So - because there are valid issues with how Google manages it's business, we should completely ignore the valid points Schmidt makes, and let the UN have the internet?
The problem with your argument is this: you assume that those who see a problem with the distribution of wealth think that we should not reward merit at all.
This is not the case.
What is the case is that the disparity of wealth, when it grows too extreme, does not drive industry; it does not build a middle class, and it rewards existent wealth as opposed to rewarding hard work, diligence and innovation. Especially when so much of it is hoarded in offshore accounts.
An extreme disparity of wealth leads to a third world economy (see also Mexico) and destroys the middle class. And historically, when it gets bad enough, it causes a nation to rip itself apart.
Furthermore, it leads to corruption of democracy, as we've seen in this country. From Citizens United to the "private fundraisers", too much of our system is bought and paid for by the concentration of wealth that we've allowed to develop in the hands of the very few. It warps both the social fabric, and
Are all successful people in the 1% evil? No. Are all of their gains always ill gotten? No. However, the concentration of wealth in this nation, the disparity of income for effort, has grown so extreme that it no longer furthers those things that capitalism is supposed to be good at promoting: hard work, merit, innovation and the rest of the values that it is supposed to drive.
... it's pretty obvious that this was assembled not by some bayesian learning system, but by hand.
Of course, since they probably have a dozen or so actual terrorist electronic communications at most, it makes it rather hard to actually put together a model that holds water.
More wasteful security theater and intrusion into our lives.
PS: Blizzard? Really? So - they're protecting us from the horde?
It has an incestuous brother selling his pre-teen sister (after some rather violent fondling and other forms of abuse) to a Mongolian horde style war chief.
Which is probably about right for the pre-industrial / quasi-pre-literary society being described.
But also probably offensive to many, and probably against the pay-pal (and Amazon, for that matter) TOS.
We started with mainframes, then went to PC's. From somebody else having your computing resources to you having them.
While the cloud may be inherently distributed, it is like the mainframe approach in so far as your interface is much like a mainframe interface, and someone else again has your computing resources.
Ironically, quantum computing might well put cycle things back to the PC model, in so far as you might no longer need the power of the cloud to get the job done; it might be feasible to have adequate and massive power in your desktop box again.
... that the patent system is about division of wealth, and not about creating products that lead to wealth these days?
This thread will probably turn into a flame war about the relative merits of Yahoo/ABC and Facebook. But the true story here is, that like all the other big patent battles going on these days, this is about divvying up the internet between a few players, who will profit forevermore from it. Now it's all about who gets what slice of the pie - a pie that will keep on giving forever.
The first a very frustrated one between Siri and the driver. Or rather, between the driver and nothing.
The second between the driver and ATT, wherein ATT informs the drive that his bandwidth has been throttled, and thus, Siri isn't going to be responding.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that anybody who says, "We don't want to have to hurt you" generally wants to hurt you.
So, then - what differentiates between one being in a state of resisting and not?
Because it sounds like one always is given your definition.
To most folks, that reference will make about as much sense as someone typing ummagumma.
The thought of an MS pacemaker EULA is pretty scary....
... that the UN does eventually get control.
Also, what the hell is DHS doing enforcing gambling rules and laws at all? Let alone on other nations?
In the UK, you pay a far more realistic price.
Here in the US, the cost is subsidized by massive tax breaks to the oil companies, and wars of aggression to ensure oil fields.
We're in the UN so that we, and the rest of the world, talk about things instead of pulling the trigger without talking.
It's expensive. It doesn't get much done. Many corrupt governments and dictators are there. And all it does is talk most of the time.
Which is the point, and what it's supposed to do. It's a governor on events; it slows them down, so tempers have time to cool.
So - because there are valid issues with how Google manages it's business, we should completely ignore the valid points Schmidt makes, and let the UN have the internet?
The problem with your argument is this: you assume that those who see a problem with the distribution of wealth think that we should not reward merit at all.
This is not the case.
What is the case is that the disparity of wealth, when it grows too extreme, does not drive industry; it does not build a middle class, and it rewards existent wealth as opposed to rewarding hard work, diligence and innovation. Especially when so much of it is hoarded in offshore accounts.
An extreme disparity of wealth leads to a third world economy (see also Mexico) and destroys the middle class. And historically, when it gets bad enough, it causes a nation to rip itself apart.
Furthermore, it leads to corruption of democracy, as we've seen in this country. From Citizens United to the "private fundraisers", too much of our system is bought and paid for by the concentration of wealth that we've allowed to develop in the hands of the very few. It warps both the social fabric, and
Are all successful people in the 1% evil? No. Are all of their gains always ill gotten? No. However, the concentration of wealth in this nation, the disparity of income for effort, has grown so extreme that it no longer furthers those things that capitalism is supposed to be good at promoting: hard work, merit, innovation and the rest of the values that it is supposed to drive.
Also - at best, these are words that are used to talk about terrorists. Not words that would be used by terrorists.
What a farce.
At least they've got Blizzard. We are safe from a capital city raid, at least.
... it's pretty obvious that this was assembled not by some bayesian learning system, but by hand.
Of course, since they probably have a dozen or so actual terrorist electronic communications at most, it makes it rather hard to actually put together a model that holds water.
More wasteful security theater and intrusion into our lives.
PS: Blizzard? Really? So - they're protecting us from the horde?
It has an incestuous brother selling his pre-teen sister (after some rather violent fondling and other forms of abuse) to a Mongolian horde style war chief.
Which is probably about right for the pre-industrial / quasi-pre-literary society being described.
But also probably offensive to many, and probably against the pay-pal (and Amazon, for that matter) TOS.
And Shakespeare.
A Midsummer's Night's Dream anyone?
Likewise, fantasy novels in which human characters transform into non-humans are affected if those characters have sex.
Please?
... to keep Yahoo from suing them.
Does posting this count against my three minutes?
I wonder what animal will go on the cover of O'Reilly Quantum Computing In a Nutshell; a cat in a box?
You won't know till you open the book.
It may be cyclic.
We started with mainframes, then went to PC's. From somebody else having your computing resources to you having them.
While the cloud may be inherently distributed, it is like the mainframe approach in so far as your interface is much like a mainframe interface, and someone else again has your computing resources.
Ironically, quantum computing might well put cycle things back to the PC model, in so far as you might no longer need the power of the cloud to get the job done; it might be feasible to have adequate and massive power in your desktop box again.
Maybe it's more a reflection of the changes in the tech industry than in the site.
And absolutely who the next president is - and the fight to get there - is going to have fallout that impacts the technical/nerd/geek world.
The politicians and other powers that be are quite aware of our toys and the potential of what we do, and absolutely want to own and control it.
When I get robo calls, my inclination is to write a script that robo calls the caller's organization.
... that the patent system is about division of wealth, and not about creating products that lead to wealth these days?
This thread will probably turn into a flame war about the relative merits of Yahoo/ABC and Facebook. But the true story here is, that like all the other big patent battles going on these days, this is about divvying up the internet between a few players, who will profit forevermore from it. Now it's all about who gets what slice of the pie - a pie that will keep on giving forever.
On the other hand, the folks buying new Mercedes probably aren't looking at long term investment... we're talking 0.01% for the most part here.
The first a very frustrated one between Siri and the driver. Or rather, between the driver and nothing.
The second between the driver and ATT, wherein ATT informs the drive that his bandwidth has been throttled, and thus, Siri isn't going to be responding.