There are thousands of apparent one-off videos like You stupid fucking n-ggers! [youtube.com]
I don't think that particular one is a good example of being "hate" (where hate means racism.) Sure, it treads on thin ice, and probably isn't something you'd want to place any ads on, but it sits more on the side of discourse. I suppose you could call it uncivil discourse.
I doubt they would shut it down, it's just too valuable.
I think it's most likely that they'd change their policies (up to and including implementing a censorship policy that extends beyond its current one that only bans illegal and pornographic content) and if that fails, they'd sell it. But outright shutting it down just wouldn't make any sense.
Would be a shame if they went as far as increasing censorship policies though. I remember around the time of Benghazi when Hillary (rather blatantly) lied about that Innocence of Muslims video being the cause of those people dying, there was huge pressure from the US government and some of the actors for Google to delete it, and they stood their ground and refused on the basis of freedom of speech. That was quite a commendable thing because of the costs they had to incur for defending what was otherwise a really poorly made video (from what I heard, I never watched it.)
I think in an ideal world, any and all content should remain accessible and shouldn't be subject to deletion, (Reddit) nor should any unpopular opinions be criminalized (Europe, who have failed to learn from the past) no matter how stupid it is. Even if the idiots are given a forum, the truth will be vindicated.
That is not to say or imply that they should have the right to sponsorship though -- far from it.
You are talking insane psychopaths driven by insensate greed and this quarters profits.
Even if this was somewhat accurate, (it's not) shareholders would quickly ditch any stock run by a company that does this, and it would just as quickly crash and burn. The vast majority of shareholders won't buy a lot of shares in a company unless they plan to hold on to it long term (i.e. 3+ years) and 95% of them don't care one way or another about quarterly results, nor do they bother to read 10Qs. ETF/MF/HF managers will, but they typically won't sell off a stock just because a company had a bad quarter.
Google certainly isn't stupid enough to sacrifice long-term viability just for one quarter, neither is any other fortune 500 company. Likewise, I really doubt Google would sell off what is arguably their biggest asset, sacrificing their long-term viability all in the interest of having one phenomenal quarter.
I don't think it makes sense for ad companies themselves to sell that kind of information. That kind of information is valuable to the ad company for their own purposes, and is devalued if they transfer it to a third party.
For example, why would it make sense for Google to sell information it collects on you? Google sells ad placement services, and if this third party wants access to Google's users for marketing purposes, it will have to buy ad space from Google. So why on earth would Google sell this information to the third party? That would only give the third party the means to compete with them for either providing its own ad placement or selling its own ad placement services, thus eating into Google's ad revenue.
Now if you're not in the business of selling ad space or producing ads, THEN it would make sense.
Prior to automated switchboards, there was basically zero expectation of privacy for phone systems. It used to be that your phone line was shared among numerous houses who could listen at any time, and the operator had to listen in to connect calls and terminate them as requested. Metered calls in particular had to have somebody on the line to keep track of your time (and every minute they'd tell you how many minutes your call was so far) for billing purposes.
When it came time to switch to automated systems out of pure necessity, there was even a large group of consumers who resisted it, called the Anti-Digit-Dialing League.
My point is that consumers demonstrated a preference for something, a consideration other than the lowest price.
And my point is that this is nothing new. You're talking/implying as though people didn't do this in the past and are now suddenly doing it, which is very much incorrect. As I stated previously: There has never been any point in history where the competitor with the lowest price always wins. It's just straight up never happened.
I know Bernie (and his fan base) and some socialists love to talk about capitalism being a race to the bottom, but it's all a load of crap spewed by people who fundamentally don't understand economics (hell, socialism itself wouldn't even be a thing if they did.) Businesses have always preferred to compete on value, and not strictly on price.
Well, you know what they say about all good things.
Given Europe's attitude towards hate speech and how they enforce "right to be forgotten", I'm surprised that they haven't already erected a GFW at this point and outright blocked youtube, facebook, and twitter, and/or just outright blocked any and all content that might offend somebody in some way unless the police in Germany and France can be given special moderator permissions to delete content as they please.
Actually a weak mind can't tell the difference between reality and what is imagined. This is why tarot cards are a thing, and it's how Alex Jones makes money.
What are you talking about? It runs on its own separate processor. It's not even x86, it's ARC. The purpose is to allow you to troubleshoot a PC that merely powers on but is otherwise dead, up to and including a dead CPU.
That's nice, except for the part where it's independent of the CPU (in other words, it works even with a dead CPU) and the fact that it's off by default and the end user has to go out of their way to enable it. Though that doesn't make for a good enough conspiracy theory so nobody mentions it, and instead only pay attention to RMSs (incorrect) belief that it's enabled by default.
Between the Bush recession and Obamanomics (that is, deliberately making it more costly to hire full time workers) people assume that incomes are chronically falling due to automation (in spite of evidence of this being anecdotal at best) and therefore you need to make burger flipping a career rather than a short term job, and therefore burger flippers should have the right to the same income as doctors, because they're human beings too.
We can just call that "entitlement economics", and like communism before it, it will pass.
What percentage of products are greenwashing and what percentage are effective and less troublesome for people and/or the environment I don't know. However that doesn't matter to my point, which is that people demonstrated a willingness to buy something using a metric other than the lowest price and manufacturers and retailers respond. It worked for "green". It could work for "domestic/local".
This has never not been the case, neither for green nor domestic/local nor any other value-add category you can name. Never, at any point in time, has the competitor with the lowest price always won. This has remained true even in the case of the worst economic periods in history.
Granted, there is the concept of inferior goods (inferior goods are defined as those that rise in demand when the economy is going through a rough period, and fall in demand when the economy does well; ramen noodles are an example of an inferior good) but inferior goods aren't the only goods that manage to do well during bad times.
I've never had any kind of business relationship with Wal-Mart whatsoever, rather I just call bullshit when I see it. Besides, brainwashed is believing every urban myth you come across without question, including the one I debunked above.
If consumers wanted to demonstrate a preference for local products they have options. Such a trend would be recognized. That is why you find various "greener" products at the grocery store nowadays, consumers started voting with their dollars and stores responded.
By this, are you referring to organic produce? And by greener, are you referring to environmentalism?
If so, you're basically being sold the scam of the century, and being suckered hook, line, and sinker. And in fact, stores like whole foods, which have picked up popularity as of late, are the grocery store scam of the century. The first giveaway should be the fact that they sell homeopathic medicine, but if you look at their ban list, it's basically nonsensical. For example, they ban monosodium-glutamate while allowing monopotassium-glutamate (contrary to popular belief, MSG is harmless at worst, and beneficial at best.) That store also sells a ton of junk food advertised as being healthy (i.e. blue sky sodas...it's natural, so it's good for you! Nevermind that it's loaded with sugar, cuz it's REAL sugar! And nevermind that cane sugar is no better or worse than HFCS.)
You know what though? Walmart refuses to sell raw organic alfalfa sprouts due to their well known high risk for foodborn illness (and yes, many people have died from eating these when bought elsewhere,) meanwhile whole foods will happily sell them to you. But remember kids, MSG is bad even though nobody has ever gotten sick from it, and organic raw alfalfa sprouts are good because they're natural, and natural is always good for you. https://psychcentral.com/lib/t...
Anyways I'm sure that somebody who disagrees with me is going to post a response that includes links from any one of naturalnews.com, mercola.com, foodbabe.com, foodrenegade.com, Dr. Oz, or some other well known quack source, but please don't bother because I consider clicking these kinds of links a total waste of time.
I beg to differ. I have never seen any attempt to market products this way. When I go to the Apple store, they don't sell an iPhone made at Foxconn and an iPhone made in the US. It doesn't happen with any product.
Furthermore, GP seems to imply that domestically produced and/or pricier goods are always superior, which is quite a false impression. Lean manufacturing is a real thing, and in a nutshell it means reducing the number of manual steps in production, which not only lowers cost (and therefore, price) but results in a more consistent, lower defect, and thus higher quality, product.
If you know anything at all about engineering, you'd know this to be true.
And as far as domestic vs foreign...a perfect example of where GP's implication is wrong is in the auto industry. Without a doubt, most American cars are of inferior quality compared to Japanese cars; something that consumer reports has shown time and time again.
TL;DR: Walmart (and other big box retailers) actually do pay higher wages to the line workers than typical mom and pop stores. Furthermore, unlike mom and pop shops, there are actually opportunities for promotion at a walmart. A typical general manager at walmart sits in the $100k/year range, and the lower level store managers aren't much lower. At a mom and pop retailer however, you'd be lucky if you made it anywhere past being a cashier or stocking shelves. Why? Because most family owned businesses typically assign valuable positions only to family members.
As for GP's comment about Walmart treating suppliers bad, without knowing the specifics, I have a feeling that GP is talking about how Walmart has always lead the way in terms of making its supply chain more efficient, something that started with the barcode:
And of course, remember how during the 90's, video games (especially PC games) came in boxes the size of a cereal box, but were mostly empty? Walmart alone changed that by establishing packaging requirements in order for a supplier to be allowed to put anything on their shelves. And yeah, you're damn right the supplier will hate it because they can't make their product bigger and more eye catching than their competitors, however in terms of being less environmentally wasteful, and ultimately reducing costs to the consumer, it totally made sense.
Saving money isn't bad, and in many cases it means you're being more efficient and more practical.
The constitution is quite clear, people are allowed to block public thoroughfares to protest.
No it's not. In fact if anything, case law has ruled the exact opposite of this on many occasions.
Speech that creates a clear and present danger is outlawed. (Example: shouting fire in a crowded building.) When people walk on the street like this, they not only put themselves at risk, but they put the general public at risk. If you look on youtube, you can see videos of them getting hit by cars at highway speeds. In one video, BLM protesters were walking on the street, and when one of them was struck, somebody in the crowd fired gunshots at the driver (who ironically, was black.)
Obviously, not a safe situation.
And furthermore, emergency vehicles are obviously being impeded, also not a safe situation.
If you think this is somehow constitutionally protected, then you don't know shit about the constitution.
So then in effect, if you're one Planck length unit away, then moving half of the distance means you're there. Would that also be the same as saying if we're one Planck temperature unit away from zero entropy, then the next step, no matter how small, would be absolute zero? And if so, doesn't that mean we can reach absolute zero?
It was until the Drumpf's immigrated to American and brought their "Wrong! Fake! Never Happened!" brand of debate to the US.
Well...That's not necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I do this all the time, and the infowars.com people hate it because I ruin their arguments about stupid shit like chemtrails and 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Slashdot Mirror
There are thousands of apparent one-off videos like You stupid fucking n-ggers! [youtube.com]
I don't think that particular one is a good example of being "hate" (where hate means racism.) Sure, it treads on thin ice, and probably isn't something you'd want to place any ads on, but it sits more on the side of discourse. I suppose you could call it uncivil discourse.
And then there's this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I doubt they would shut it down, it's just too valuable.
I think it's most likely that they'd change their policies (up to and including implementing a censorship policy that extends beyond its current one that only bans illegal and pornographic content) and if that fails, they'd sell it. But outright shutting it down just wouldn't make any sense.
Would be a shame if they went as far as increasing censorship policies though. I remember around the time of Benghazi when Hillary (rather blatantly) lied about that Innocence of Muslims video being the cause of those people dying, there was huge pressure from the US government and some of the actors for Google to delete it, and they stood their ground and refused on the basis of freedom of speech. That was quite a commendable thing because of the costs they had to incur for defending what was otherwise a really poorly made video (from what I heard, I never watched it.)
I think in an ideal world, any and all content should remain accessible and shouldn't be subject to deletion, (Reddit) nor should any unpopular opinions be criminalized (Europe, who have failed to learn from the past) no matter how stupid it is. Even if the idiots are given a forum, the truth will be vindicated.
That is not to say or imply that they should have the right to sponsorship though -- far from it.
You are talking insane psychopaths driven by insensate greed and this quarters profits.
Even if this was somewhat accurate, (it's not) shareholders would quickly ditch any stock run by a company that does this, and it would just as quickly crash and burn. The vast majority of shareholders won't buy a lot of shares in a company unless they plan to hold on to it long term (i.e. 3+ years) and 95% of them don't care one way or another about quarterly results, nor do they bother to read 10Qs. ETF/MF/HF managers will, but they typically won't sell off a stock just because a company had a bad quarter.
Google certainly isn't stupid enough to sacrifice long-term viability just for one quarter, neither is any other fortune 500 company. Likewise, I really doubt Google would sell off what is arguably their biggest asset, sacrificing their long-term viability all in the interest of having one phenomenal quarter.
I don't think it makes sense for ad companies themselves to sell that kind of information. That kind of information is valuable to the ad company for their own purposes, and is devalued if they transfer it to a third party.
For example, why would it make sense for Google to sell information it collects on you? Google sells ad placement services, and if this third party wants access to Google's users for marketing purposes, it will have to buy ad space from Google. So why on earth would Google sell this information to the third party? That would only give the third party the means to compete with them for either providing its own ad placement or selling its own ad placement services, thus eating into Google's ad revenue.
Now if you're not in the business of selling ad space or producing ads, THEN it would make sense.
Prior to automated switchboards, there was basically zero expectation of privacy for phone systems. It used to be that your phone line was shared among numerous houses who could listen at any time, and the operator had to listen in to connect calls and terminate them as requested. Metered calls in particular had to have somebody on the line to keep track of your time (and every minute they'd tell you how many minutes your call was so far) for billing purposes.
When it came time to switch to automated systems out of pure necessity, there was even a large group of consumers who resisted it, called the Anti-Digit-Dialing League.
My point is that consumers demonstrated a preference for something, a consideration other than the lowest price.
And my point is that this is nothing new. You're talking/implying as though people didn't do this in the past and are now suddenly doing it, which is very much incorrect. As I stated previously: There has never been any point in history where the competitor with the lowest price always wins. It's just straight up never happened.
I know Bernie (and his fan base) and some socialists love to talk about capitalism being a race to the bottom, but it's all a load of crap spewed by people who fundamentally don't understand economics (hell, socialism itself wouldn't even be a thing if they did.) Businesses have always preferred to compete on value, and not strictly on price.
Oh please...Every president since Reagan has had "anomics" attached to their name.
Well, you know what they say about all good things.
Given Europe's attitude towards hate speech and how they enforce "right to be forgotten", I'm surprised that they haven't already erected a GFW at this point and outright blocked youtube, facebook, and twitter, and/or just outright blocked any and all content that might offend somebody in some way unless the police in Germany and France can be given special moderator permissions to delete content as they please.
Actually a weak mind can't tell the difference between reality and what is imagined. This is why tarot cards are a thing, and it's how Alex Jones makes money.
What are you talking about? It runs on its own separate processor. It's not even x86, it's ARC. The purpose is to allow you to troubleshoot a PC that merely powers on but is otherwise dead, up to and including a dead CPU.
That's nice, except for the part where it's independent of the CPU (in other words, it works even with a dead CPU) and the fact that it's off by default and the end user has to go out of their way to enable it. Though that doesn't make for a good enough conspiracy theory so nobody mentions it, and instead only pay attention to RMSs (incorrect) belief that it's enabled by default.
I think he's referring to what the scouter says about the media's power level.
Between the Bush recession and Obamanomics (that is, deliberately making it more costly to hire full time workers) people assume that incomes are chronically falling due to automation (in spite of evidence of this being anecdotal at best) and therefore you need to make burger flipping a career rather than a short term job, and therefore burger flippers should have the right to the same income as doctors, because they're human beings too.
We can just call that "entitlement economics", and like communism before it, it will pass.
What percentage of products are greenwashing and what percentage are effective and less troublesome for people and/or the environment I don't know. However that doesn't matter to my point, which is that people demonstrated a willingness to buy something using a metric other than the lowest price and manufacturers and retailers respond. It worked for "green". It could work for "domestic/local".
This has never not been the case, neither for green nor domestic/local nor any other value-add category you can name. Never, at any point in time, has the competitor with the lowest price always won. This has remained true even in the case of the worst economic periods in history.
Granted, there is the concept of inferior goods (inferior goods are defined as those that rise in demand when the economy is going through a rough period, and fall in demand when the economy does well; ramen noodles are an example of an inferior good) but inferior goods aren't the only goods that manage to do well during bad times.
I've never had any kind of business relationship with Wal-Mart whatsoever, rather I just call bullshit when I see it. Besides, brainwashed is believing every urban myth you come across without question, including the one I debunked above.
If consumers wanted to demonstrate a preference for local products they have options. Such a trend would be recognized. That is why you find various "greener" products at the grocery store nowadays, consumers started voting with their dollars and stores responded.
By this, are you referring to organic produce? And by greener, are you referring to environmentalism?
If so, you're basically being sold the scam of the century, and being suckered hook, line, and sinker. And in fact, stores like whole foods, which have picked up popularity as of late, are the grocery store scam of the century. The first giveaway should be the fact that they sell homeopathic medicine, but if you look at their ban list, it's basically nonsensical. For example, they ban monosodium-glutamate while allowing monopotassium-glutamate (contrary to popular belief, MSG is harmless at worst, and beneficial at best.) That store also sells a ton of junk food advertised as being healthy (i.e. blue sky sodas...it's natural, so it's good for you! Nevermind that it's loaded with sugar, cuz it's REAL sugar! And nevermind that cane sugar is no better or worse than HFCS.)
You know what though? Walmart refuses to sell raw organic alfalfa sprouts due to their well known high risk for foodborn illness (and yes, many people have died from eating these when bought elsewhere,) meanwhile whole foods will happily sell them to you. But remember kids, MSG is bad even though nobody has ever gotten sick from it, and organic raw alfalfa sprouts are good because they're natural, and natural is always good for you. https://psychcentral.com/lib/t...
Anyways I'm sure that somebody who disagrees with me is going to post a response that includes links from any one of naturalnews.com, mercola.com, foodbabe.com, foodrenegade.com, Dr. Oz, or some other well known quack source, but please don't bother because I consider clicking these kinds of links a total waste of time.
I beg to differ. I have never seen any attempt to market products this way. When I go to the Apple store, they don't sell an iPhone made at Foxconn and an iPhone made in the US. It doesn't happen with any product.
Furthermore, GP seems to imply that domestically produced and/or pricier goods are always superior, which is quite a false impression. Lean manufacturing is a real thing, and in a nutshell it means reducing the number of manual steps in production, which not only lowers cost (and therefore, price) but results in a more consistent, lower defect, and thus higher quality, product.
If you know anything at all about engineering, you'd know this to be true.
And as far as domestic vs foreign...a perfect example of where GP's implication is wrong is in the auto industry. Without a doubt, most American cars are of inferior quality compared to Japanese cars; something that consumer reports has shown time and time again.
Me, I like the low prices.
If you want to spend your extra dollar, maybe give it to a charity?
Even if you aren't after low prices, GP's argument, while a popular sentiment, is also false.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ma...
TL;DR: Walmart (and other big box retailers) actually do pay higher wages to the line workers than typical mom and pop stores. Furthermore, unlike mom and pop shops, there are actually opportunities for promotion at a walmart. A typical general manager at walmart sits in the $100k/year range, and the lower level store managers aren't much lower. At a mom and pop retailer however, you'd be lucky if you made it anywhere past being a cashier or stocking shelves. Why? Because most family owned businesses typically assign valuable positions only to family members.
As for GP's comment about Walmart treating suppliers bad, without knowing the specifics, I have a feeling that GP is talking about how Walmart has always lead the way in terms of making its supply chain more efficient, something that started with the barcode:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...
And of course, remember how during the 90's, video games (especially PC games) came in boxes the size of a cereal box, but were mostly empty? Walmart alone changed that by establishing packaging requirements in order for a supplier to be allowed to put anything on their shelves. And yeah, you're damn right the supplier will hate it because they can't make their product bigger and more eye catching than their competitors, however in terms of being less environmentally wasteful, and ultimately reducing costs to the consumer, it totally made sense.
Saving money isn't bad, and in many cases it means you're being more efficient and more practical.
The constitution is quite clear, people are allowed to block public thoroughfares to protest.
No it's not. In fact if anything, case law has ruled the exact opposite of this on many occasions.
Speech that creates a clear and present danger is outlawed. (Example: shouting fire in a crowded building.) When people walk on the street like this, they not only put themselves at risk, but they put the general public at risk. If you look on youtube, you can see videos of them getting hit by cars at highway speeds. In one video, BLM protesters were walking on the street, and when one of them was struck, somebody in the crowd fired gunshots at the driver (who ironically, was black.)
Obviously, not a safe situation.
And furthermore, emergency vehicles are obviously being impeded, also not a safe situation.
If you think this is somehow constitutionally protected, then you don't know shit about the constitution.
There's a difference between preventing peaceful protest and preventing people from blocking highways that are used for emergency vehicles.
But this article you linked doesn't bother to mention that.
YiffyPop
Ok what about two then?
So then in effect, if you're one Planck length unit away, then moving half of the distance means you're there. Would that also be the same as saying if we're one Planck temperature unit away from zero entropy, then the next step, no matter how small, would be absolute zero? And if so, doesn't that mean we can reach absolute zero?
It was until the Drumpf's immigrated to American and brought their "Wrong! Fake! Never Happened!" brand of debate to the US.
Well...That's not necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I do this all the time, and the infowars.com people hate it because I ruin their arguments about stupid shit like chemtrails and 9/11 conspiracy theories.
It would be if each additional half-distance traveled required more work and more time than was expended to travel the first half.
Then how do you travel half of the Plank length?