Because you care about what will happen to your country in 10-30 years from now.
Think about an individual being in too much debt, now is that "an investment" in the person? Think about junk bonds at a low interest rate, is that "an investment"?
>It's not Google's place to tell a foreign government how to treat their citizens.
Its not Google's place to tell ANY government how to treat their citizens. I'm not sure what the difference is between the US and China. Just because Google is incorporated in the US?
>Now, can you imagine the U.S. without Google?
Google has a market cap of $111 billion, 5,680 employees and revenues of $6.139 billion for 2005. It is only been in existance since about 1995/8, depending on what you count.
In comparison, Citigroup has a market cap of $237 billion, 294,000 employees and revenue of $108 billion for 2005. Its over 100 years old, depending what you count.
Google is nothing to the big scheme of things in the US. Yes I can imagine the US without Google and I find it hard to believe that anyone else can't, unless you work for them. Try blocking all of google's domains or seeing what the US is without the computer; thats what US is like without Google.
>I frankly don't care if google handles all of my internet capabilities, because I trust them to do the right thing, and so far thay haven't proven me wrong.
Thats just messed up in so many ways.
Google is a company. Have you've personnally met the board of directors? The techguys? The middle management? Why the hell would you trust them with anything?
You use their services, but why does increase your trust in them? Do you trust Del Monte Foods just because you eat alot of pineapples?
Google is just a tech company that provides Internet services, to actually give them blind trust is just crazy.
>Unless you subscribe to the ridiculous idea that getting snubbed by a single search engine would cause the Chinese government to rethink its whole 'repressing the people' thing, providing no search results in China serves absolutely no-one.
Its called taking a moral stand and it serves by setting an example for others.
Sometimes all it takes is one to start something, and Google passed on when it was time to step up to the plate.
>Either way, the literal interpretation of your message is given color and additional meaning by your chosen form of expression
You do know it works both ways? Expression of form can either mean that you are blunt or you can show that you arrogant.
Communication with a simple-minded person who is open to new ideas and is more forgiving of mistakes and errors is vastly more pleasurable than a person who is fixed in their ways and who attempts to raise the minor flaws to the status of major sins.
>I'm tired of cryptic email that is so full of typos, misspellings and mangled grammar
I'm tired of people who use the words "stupid" and "evil" for anything that they don't agree with. I'm tired of people who arrogantly use people who use one word sentences.
It appears that you have a problem with people who write you email. Address it with them, don't rant on other people. Doing so just shows how closed-minded you are.
>Kids who cant write a coherent written sentence because they are so used to using slang.
I was talking to a guy at work and laughing at the whole "O RLY?" thing and how its is understood as being sarcatic/put-down. In the next few minutes, I was showing him something business related that I thought that he should address. I explained the issue to him and he said "Oh, really?". I looked at him with a confused look and stared at him wondering why he didn't think that it wasn't a high priority item. He realized what I was mis-interpretating and clarified that he meant - "Oh.... is this really happening? I'll look into it."
>it's reaching the point where I'm genuinely struggling to understand what people are saying.
Its because you are fixed in a certain way.
>Since my brain is conditioned to associate a completely different meaning to the word "no", I have to do a double take before I can work out what they meant.
And when I pick up a book from the 1800's or even early 1900's I do the same thing too. Is their writing incorrect? I hope not because these books are considered classics.
Things changes.
Women used to not wear pants. Men had short hair. We were ranked by a persons pedigree and not by their job title or money.
>And telling users when results have been omitted/censored.
Yes that makes all the differnce in the world.
"These search results may be censored due to local laws, but we can't tell you why because that would be against local laws. It may be people getting run over by tanks or beastiality or pictures of Chairman Mao shaking hands with Elvis. Sorry for the ignorance we are propogating. Oh, and your search queries may be accessable to your local goverment for who knows what purpose. Except in America, where we will fight tooth-and-nail against doing something like this because this will result in a chilling effect on Google's Business and users trust."
You are quoting an editorial from Feb 2, 2006 written by some newspaper not related to Google.
I am quoting the Feb 17, 2006 legal documents from Google's own lawyers and what they intend to argue in court. (Someone else already posted the link to the document)
Think for yourself. Take the effort and look beyond the press-releases and stop believing everything you read just because you its printed.
but that Google will keep private whatever information users communicate absent a compelling reason. ...
If Google is forced to compromise its privacy principles...
The privacy and anonymity of the service are major factors in the attraction of users - that is, users trust Google to do right by their personal information and to provide them with the best search results.
Compare this from the legal documents; Google users trust that when they enter a search query into a Google search box, not only will they receive back the most relevant results,
and how they are censoring/omitting results on the request of the government of China.
Somewhere Google knows how this looks at first glance to the average Internet user. "Oh look, they are protecting me from Big Brother! I should trust them!". Alot of companies do this sort of "image-management" and I believe alot of people would too. Google is no different. Be aware.
>We all have *quasi-idiots* working around us at times. Just as they do not define who we are I don't think it is fair to say Homeland Security is therefore bad.
It is Homeland Security responsibity to tell them what they should be doing. It is Homeland Security responsiblity to train them correctly and tell them what they can do and what they cannot. It is Homeland Security's responsiblity for hiring professional and intelligent people, ie not hiring "quasi-idiots".
Even Homeland Security knows this. From the article: Still, Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers "so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution," Romer said in his statement.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you care about what will happen to your country in 10-30 years from now.
Think about an individual being in too much debt, now is that "an investment" in the person? Think about junk bonds at a low interest rate, is that "an investment"?
Er... we already have that tax; the G.S.T.
>It's not Google's place to tell a foreign government how to treat their citizens.
Its not Google's place to tell ANY government how to treat their citizens. I'm not sure what the difference is between the US and China. Just because Google is incorporated in the US?
>Now, can you imagine the U.S. without Google?
Google has a market cap of $111 billion, 5,680 employees and revenues of $6.139 billion for 2005. It is only been in existance since about 1995/8, depending on what you count.
In comparison, Citigroup has a market cap of $237 billion, 294,000 employees and revenue of $108 billion for 2005. Its over 100 years old,
depending what you count.
Google is nothing to the big scheme of things in the US. Yes I can imagine the US without Google and I find it hard to believe that anyone else can't, unless you work for them. Try blocking all of google's domains or seeing what the US is without the computer; thats what US is like without Google.
Who said anything about being paranoid about big companies?
Do you give you personnal information to people you just met? Let strangers read your emails?
Its about common sense.
>I frankly don't care if google handles all of my internet capabilities, because I trust them to do the right thing, and so far thay haven't proven me wrong.
Thats just messed up in so many ways.
Google is a company. Have you've personnally met the board of directors? The techguys? The middle management? Why the hell would you trust them with anything?
You use their services, but why does increase your trust in them? Do you trust Del Monte Foods just because you eat alot of pineapples?
Google is just a tech company that provides Internet services, to actually give them blind trust is just crazy.
Wow. Thats just messed up if it is true;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthlink
Google first gets sued by Scientologists and then they join up with them.
>Unless you subscribe to the ridiculous idea that getting snubbed by a single search engine would cause the Chinese government to rethink its whole 'repressing the people' thing, providing no search results in China serves absolutely no-one.
Its called taking a moral stand and it serves by setting an example for others.
Sometimes all it takes is one to start something, and Google passed on when it was time to step up to the plate.
>If he really needs to use the net, he can, but only with lynx.
Welcome to the world of ASCII pr0n! NSFW (or school districts) !!!!
>Either way, the literal interpretation of your message is given color and additional meaning by your chosen form of expression
You do know it works both ways? Expression of form can either mean that you are blunt or you can show that you arrogant.
Communication with a simple-minded person who is open to new ideas and is more forgiving of mistakes and errors is vastly more pleasurable than a person who is fixed in their ways and who attempts to raise the minor flaws to the status of major sins.
>I'm tired of cryptic email that is so full of typos, misspellings and mangled grammar
I'm tired of people who use the words "stupid" and "evil" for anything that they don't agree with. I'm tired of people who arrogantly use people who use one word sentences.
It appears that you have a problem with people who write you email. Address it with them, don't rant on other people. Doing so just shows how closed-minded you are.
>they're not talking about the language changing, but that it's changing too quickly, and for the worse.
Has there ever been a change in society that you can't find a group of people saying that its too quick and for the worse?
>Kids who cant write a coherent written sentence because they are so used to using slang.
I was talking to a guy at work and laughing at the whole "O RLY?" thing and how its is understood as being sarcatic/put-down. In the next few minutes, I was showing him something business related that I thought that he should address. I explained the issue to him and he said "Oh, really?". I looked at him with a confused look and stared at him wondering why he didn't think that it wasn't a high priority item. He realized what I was mis-interpretating and clarified that he meant - "Oh.... is this really happening? I'll look into it."
>Can you really think of something if you don't have the words to describe it?
There are lots of things that we don't have words for. Just ask someone who knows a different language.
For example:Umami
>A simple language is the mark of a simple culture, which was Orwell's point.
And so what would he say about the whole Apple design philosophy?
>it's reaching the point where I'm genuinely struggling to understand what people are saying.
Its because you are fixed in a certain way.
>Since my brain is conditioned to associate a completely different meaning to the word "no", I have to do a double take before I can work out what they meant.
And when I pick up a book from the 1800's or even early 1900's I do the same thing too. Is their writing incorrect? I hope not because these books are considered classics.
Things changes.
Women used to not wear pants.
Men had short hair.
We were ranked by a persons pedigree and not by their job title or money.
Things change.
I would say that he wouldn't be far off.
Look at how much network security is needed for WoW. Or gold farmers and how organized they are.
Look at how the Nigerian email scams are still going around
Getting access to someone's bank account is low risk and effort, high reward.
>Did you read the document, or just the first two sentences?
Did you read my previous post? I quoted from all over the document. They do mention other points but privacy is definately one of them.
>I want to know how these super-students find data to publish new and interesting research on freaking stem cells.
They are high-school students; they're so young they just extracted them from their own brains.
The first sentence of the introduction address privacy. Look at the second sentence, trust is listed before the burden and usefullness issues.
Does that sound like privacy is an afterthought? If anything, its the technical issues that are the afterthought and is used to strengthen its case.
>And telling users when results have been omitted/censored.
Yes that makes all the differnce in the world.
"These search results may be censored due to local laws, but we can't tell you why because that would be against local laws. It may be people getting run over by tanks or beastiality or pictures of Chairman Mao shaking hands with Elvis. Sorry for the ignorance we are propogating. Oh, and your search queries may be accessable to your local goverment for who knows what purpose. Except in America, where we will fight tooth-and-nail against doing something like this because this will result in a chilling effect on Google's Business and users trust."
You are quoting an editorial from Feb 2, 2006 written by some newspaper not related to Google.
I am quoting the Feb 17, 2006 legal documents from Google's own lawyers and what they intend to argue in court. (Someone else already posted the link to the document)
Think for yourself. Take the effort and look beyond the press-releases and stop believing everything you read just because you its printed.
From the legal document;
...
...
but that Google will keep private whatever information users communicate absent a compelling reason.
If Google is forced to compromise its privacy principles
The privacy and anonymity of the service are major factors in the attraction of users - that is, users trust Google to do right by their personal information and to provide them with the best search results.
I have to agree with this 100%.
Compare this from the legal documents;
Google users trust that when they enter a search query into a Google search box, not only will they receive back the most relevant results,
and how they are censoring/omitting results on the request of the government of China.
Somewhere Google knows how this looks at first glance to the average Internet user. "Oh look, they are protecting me from Big Brother! I should trust them!". Alot of companies do this sort of "image-management" and I believe alot of people would too. Google is no different. Be aware.
>We all have *quasi-idiots* working around us at times. Just as they do not define who we are I don't think it is fair to say Homeland Security is therefore bad.
It is Homeland Security responsibity to tell them what they should be doing. It is Homeland Security responsiblity to train them correctly and tell them what they can do and what they cannot. It is Homeland Security's responsiblity for hiring professional and intelligent people, ie not hiring "quasi-idiots".
Even Homeland Security knows this. From the article:
Still, Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers "so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution," Romer said in his statement.
I think the main problem is that America has really only two political parties.
"Party A has really screwed us over. Hopefully Party B will be better."
And then reverse A and B once every 2/4 years.
I suppose this is what the people want; really easy decisions.