If they have to use 10 times the amount to get just a little bit richer and more powerful - especially if it's your money - you can be damn sure they'll do it.
Every time I fill in one of their captchas or provide them with data to sell to their advertisers, thereby doing work for them, I'm fairly sure it's with a computer powered by 100% coal.
All I hear is shitty patents being justified because god knows you wouldn't want something which might help people in need being built by your competitors.
1) I didn't say "unsavoury", you rancid strawmanner. What do you mean by "the commercial side of reality"? Things can be done for profit, or at cost, or for a loss. Does it anger you that people do things sometimes at cost or for a loss? And yes, people make decisions to use a product based on the company's ethics all the time.
2) The context is whether other people should be entitled to proper compensation for the data Google collects about them - or, perhaps, proper control over that data. Your piss-poor attempt at counterargument is, "Well, Google derives an the income from this data... and I don't think most people would object to Google feeling an entitlement to their income!" There's just no logical sequence there whatever.
Let me summarise your argument: a) Marketing doesn't exist. Anything which isn't a white lie is okay; b) Google are currently making an income, therefore they are entitled to it.
You're a dullard, an intellectual throw-back, a jagged stone in the sole of civilisation.
1) I wasn't thinking anything positive, because I know Google are a bunch of duplicitous cunts. But I do understand how to market a product, and you do it by painting the most positive possible picture of yourself and your product, and omitting to mention any less savoury intentions or features. You get the customer to link *product* with *goodness* rather than *product* with *reality*. It's an immoral psychological game;
2) Google thinks it is entitled to its income and the data it collects, duh.
1) They were duping the public by trying to sell it as a Thing To Help The Poor when their aim has been to sell it as a Thing To Make Money. Dishonesty is a big deal, and trade is simply dysfunctional can't work without it;
2) Google's the one with the hundreds of billions which Americans have been duped into protecting, so I'm pretty sure it's the one which thinks it's Oh So Entitled.
That depends on whether you find making a profit to be immoral.
I know we're right in the middle of the most powerful burst of the world's strongest ever atheistic religion, but it's still quite easy to conceive of a moral system which proscribes profit.
Oh yes, he does like bringing me snacks from time to time, and catches his own. Hunting is much more efficient (and humane) than farming and processed food, although humans can be squeamish about it...
Not meaningless at all. But I think it's misleading to say that it's a huge adjustment.
Yup, it's that bad in the UK - and the justification is precisely that it's necessary work experience for people who haven't yet got the hang of "getting a real job". Even to the extent that people on part time volunteer placements after university (e.g. at a museum - high profile example) have been required to quit that and instead work unpaid retail jobs (which would be min wage if they weren't instead filled by these people). So, on the one hand, you have people doing jobseeking activity AND doing relevant volunteer work being made to work irrelevant jobs; and on the other, you have people who would be in minimum wage jobs being fired so the jobs can be filled under this scheme.
It is nothing more than state-subsidised employment for the "work programme" providers, and it is one of the most unjust things to happen to the British workplace in recent memory.
Seriously, though, there'd be a tort in there for pooping, and probably opportunity for an anti-social behaviour order or restraining order. A tort could similarly apply to a pooping cat's owner in law, as consequence to any real damage caused, but the ASBO+restraining order don't seem appropriate to apply to a creature who cannot have a conception of property rights.
I think "proper workplace behaviour" is one of those meaningless concepts used to justify underpaying employees on the grounds of, "Well they don't even know how to work properly, so this is actually training rather than a proper job."
It's how employers in the UK are being subsidised by the government, as people collecting unemployment are required to do unpaid work "for experience".
I got my first paid job as follows: 1. Turn up at 8:30am on Monday morning for 9am start; 2. Spend an hour or two being guided round and introduced to relevant people, signing relevant documents, etc.; 3. Start work proper around 11am.
I think the only time I got called up for poor etiquette (embarrassing, but whatever) was turning up a couple of times on a warm morning not having had a shower. Geeks will be geeks and forget social graces. Boss took me aside for a polite word. 3 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
Do we know each other?
That's not how capitalism works at all.
If they have to use 10 times the amount to get just a little bit richer and more powerful - especially if it's your money - you can be damn sure they'll do it.
Every time I fill in one of their captchas or provide them with data to sell to their advertisers, thereby doing work for them, I'm fairly sure it's with a computer powered by 100% coal.
And I am a product, being manufactured, yes?
All I hear is shitty patents being justified because god knows you wouldn't want something which might help people in need being built by your competitors.
If I could get off on how clever I am, my life would be one long orgasm.
1) I didn't say "unsavoury", you rancid strawmanner. What do you mean by "the commercial side of reality"? Things can be done for profit, or at cost, or for a loss. Does it anger you that people do things sometimes at cost or for a loss? And yes, people make decisions to use a product based on the company's ethics all the time.
2) The context is whether other people should be entitled to proper compensation for the data Google collects about them - or, perhaps, proper control over that data. Your piss-poor attempt at counterargument is, "Well, Google derives an the income from this data... and I don't think most people would object to Google feeling an entitlement to their income!" There's just no logical sequence there whatever.
Let me summarise your argument:
a) Marketing doesn't exist. Anything which isn't a white lie is okay;
b) Google are currently making an income, therefore they are entitled to it.
You're a dullard, an intellectual throw-back, a jagged stone in the sole of civilisation.
1) I wasn't thinking anything positive, because I know Google are a bunch of duplicitous cunts. But I do understand how to market a product, and you do it by painting the most positive possible picture of yourself and your product, and omitting to mention any less savoury intentions or features. You get the customer to link *product* with *goodness* rather than *product* with *reality*. It's an immoral psychological game;
2) Google thinks it is entitled to its income and the data it collects, duh.
And you are a kow-towing milquetoast.
1) It's called "marketing", numbnuts, and it's about nine tenths lying by omission;
2) We were discussing entitlement.
1) They were duping the public by trying to sell it as a Thing To Help The Poor when their aim has been to sell it as a Thing To Make Money. Dishonesty is a big deal, and trade is simply dysfunctional can't work without it;
2) Google's the one with the hundreds of billions which Americans have been duped into protecting, so I'm pretty sure it's the one which thinks it's Oh So Entitled.
Quite.
Capitalism is an interesting economic system, but has turned into a vehicle for trickery and governance.
That depends on whether you find making a profit to be immoral.
I know we're right in the middle of the most powerful burst of the world's strongest ever atheistic religion, but it's still quite easy to conceive of a moral system which proscribes profit.
Yes, Carbon is even better because it has FOUR charges!
Your jurisdiction's backwardness is noted.
Play DOTT.
Well, that's a fairly sophisticated if culturally aware euphemism.
Oh yes, he does like bringing me snacks from time to time, and catches his own. Hunting is much more efficient (and humane) than farming and processed food, although humans can be squeamish about it...
Not meaningless at all. But I think it's misleading to say that it's a huge adjustment.
Yup, it's that bad in the UK - and the justification is precisely that it's necessary work experience for people who haven't yet got the hang of "getting a real job". Even to the extent that people on part time volunteer placements after university (e.g. at a museum - high profile example) have been required to quit that and instead work unpaid retail jobs (which would be min wage if they weren't instead filled by these people). So, on the one hand, you have people doing jobseeking activity AND doing relevant volunteer work being made to work irrelevant jobs; and on the other, you have people who would be in minimum wage jobs being fired so the jobs can be filled under this scheme.
It is nothing more than state-subsidised employment for the "work programme" providers, and it is one of the most unjust things to happen to the British workplace in recent memory.
Aw, my cat does a lot of snuggling to me at night, so there must be that too...
Maybe he rapes me after I've fallen asleep :o. I should set up a web cam...
lol, well, I can try and see...
Seriously, though, there'd be a tort in there for pooping, and probably opportunity for an anti-social behaviour order or restraining order. A tort could similarly apply to a pooping cat's owner in law, as consequence to any real damage caused, but the ASBO+restraining order don't seem appropriate to apply to a creature who cannot have a conception of property rights.
Something like that, anyway.
Well, England's certainly done that to most of the world, but it wasn't part of the right to roam ;).
Fortunately, looting, raping, burning and pillaging are not on most cats' agendas... at least not while we're watching.
I think "proper workplace behaviour" is one of those meaningless concepts used to justify underpaying employees on the grounds of, "Well they don't even know how to work properly, so this is actually training rather than a proper job."
It's how employers in the UK are being subsidised by the government, as people collecting unemployment are required to do unpaid work "for experience".
I got my first paid job as follows:
1. Turn up at 8:30am on Monday morning for 9am start;
2. Spend an hour or two being guided round and introduced to relevant people, signing relevant documents, etc.;
3. Start work proper around 11am.
I think the only time I got called up for poor etiquette (embarrassing, but whatever) was turning up a couple of times on a warm morning not having had a shower. Geeks will be geeks and forget social graces. Boss took me aside for a polite word. 3 minutes.
You mean to say that Sanford Ave doesn't have 19,886 suites?!
I don't want to live where you live.
Where I live, cats and humans have a right to roam.
I care for your hairless monkey property law about as much as the cat does.
Please never have children.
I would assume that the NSA is at least a decade ahead of open academia on all problems relevant to them.