Google may be doing this not for privacy reasons at all, but because they intend to sell the exclusive organic click information and don't want third parties having access to the same information they have about those clicks.
A kid's innocence is a precious thing, and it's a shame to squander it too early.
A kid's innocence often exists primarily in the mind of their parents.
Your 12-year-old son probably has at least a vague notion about the most common sexual acts engaged in by adults. He knows that people are sometimes murdered, raped, prostituted, drunk, or high. The way he knows this? The newspaper, TV, radio, books, movies lying around the house, older friends or siblings he has, and advertisements. He has also probably seen a girl or woman naked at some point, and may have been in a fist-fight or two.
An example of a father who was blindsided by this: Educator Geoff Canada, writing about a moment where someone said something on TV about a blowjob with his young daughters sitting next to him, and he freaked out only to find out that they were familiar with the subject. And this was a guy who works with troubled youth in the worst areas of New York City.
What did you learn in school today, Dear little child of mine? What did you learn in school today, Dear little child of mine?
I learned our government must be strong, It's always right and never wrong. Our leaders are the finest men, So we elect them again and again. That's what I learned in school today. That's what I learned in school.
I have no problem with people believing in God. I have all sorts of problems with government-funded schools demanding that students say they believe in God.
The only problem is that government is allowing corporations to push their agenda in the classroom...
Well, it's not the only problem: I distinctly remember as an elementary school student getting "lessons" about how awesome the latest war effort was, and being required to sing patriotic songs, and of course the reciting of the Pledge of Allegience which requires students to profess a belief in God. Oh, and watching "Channel 1 News", which was sometimes informative but often not and supported by commercials.
Basically, the problem is that it's easier to dupe kids than it is adults, so there are lots of organizations who are positively salivating at the prospect.
They don't care what you said or who you're talking to right now.
But let's say you started leading some sort of political movement to dismantle the NSA's surveillance of Americans. Do you think they'd then start to care what you said going back to the day they were able to start monitoring your conversations?
See, the funny thing about that is that I've had many very liberal opinions modded into oblivion solely for their conclusions. So I'm having a hard time getting convinced that there's some sort of liberal effort to mod down your posts.
I took the liberty of reviewing the recent posts of yours that had been modded down. In some cases, you indeed have a legitimate gripe: Reasonable people can differ about the correct way to handle the Syrian civil war, for example. But here's something else you wrote that got modded to -1 quickly:
Spending money on a bullshit "green" scams does not benefit mankind either. Green energy with Democrats in power is like defense with Republicans in power, a buzzword to facilitate transfer of taxpayer money to private hands.
Here are some legitimate reasons to mod that down: 1. The use of the words like "bullshit" and "scam" were unnecessarily abusive. You can argue that the programs in question are a poor use of funds without language like that. 2. You provided no evidence or logical argument for your position. Among other things, nothing in your post refuted the idea that the green energy programs were exactly what they said they were. 3. Since green energy programs cost taxpayers approximately 3.5% of the amount we spend on the military, equating them is misleading. (The 3.5% number comes from the $90 billion cited by the Romney campaign divided by approximately $2600 billion reportedly spent on the military over the same period.)
A non-troll post that would probably not get the same treatment would have been written something like this: "Green energy programs in the past have not been very effective. After spending $90 billion on them, green sources still account for only 7.3% of energy consumption. This will be just yet another waste of money."
It sounds like you were screwed all right, but not by inflation: (1) Your employer screwed you by freezing salaries. Were executive salaries frozen or cut during the same period? I doubt it. (2) The federal government screwed you by making people like you ineligible for SNAP. This was probably because as bad as your life was / is, they got hit by millions of families who are in even worse shape. And, if you didn't see the news, the Republicans in the House just passed a bill to cut SNAP even more, which could mean several million more people like you will get screwed next year.
Inflation is at worst no higher than it was 25 years ago, and probably much lower, so it is unlikely to be the true source of your problems. Put the blame where it is due: Your boss, and people in Congress who believe that SNAP shouldn't exist.
Nothing but a bunch of idiotic, xenophobic racists over there, man, I swear.
A significant portion of America are idiotic, xenophobic racists. For example: - In 2013, approximately 15% of Americans believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya, despite lots of evidence to the contrary. - The newly crowned Miss America has brown skin and dark hair, because her parents were from India. There was a lot of online activity complaining about how horrible it was that we were giving the Miss America award to an Arab who was a member of Al Qaida. - Based on recent elections for governor in my home state of Ohio, approximately one third of the electorate who typically vote Republican will not do so if their party's chosen candidate is black, regardless of other factors. - "English-only" laws in many states in the US that prohibit state employees from conducting government business in any language other than English. The stated goal of these laws is to prevent other languages, particularly Spanish, from becoming the majority language in the US.
Serious question: What ideology or opinion constitutes, in your eyes, "the groupthink of the majority"?
The reason I ask is that I've had people complain about "groupthink" when they encounter resistance to ideas that are demonstrably absurd, e.g. "UFOs piloted by gray-skinned aliens visited Earth, abducting random people out of their beds."
However, someone who had only $20k in cash savings has been effectively crippled because the loss to their savings has a much nearer term effect on their quality of life.
Not necessarily. Using some examples with 2% inflation and real dollars: - Your $20000 is now worth $19600, but your $90000 mortgage debt is now worth $88200, for a net gain of $1400. Especially if you have a fixed-rate mortgage, that means the bank assumed a certain level of inflation when determining your interest rate, and you are getting hurt if inflation is actually lower than that.
- Your $20000 is now worth $19600, but your boss gives you a corresponding raise from $25000 a year to $25500 a year, for a net gain of $100. Large employers in particular tend to factor this into annual reviews and the like.
- Your $20000 is now worth $19600, and you're an independent contractor, and your customer base was in either of the first two situations. So because they each have $750 more in disposable income, you can increase your prices from $100 to $105 an hour without risking losing customers, so you now go from making $25000 a year to $26250 a year, for a gain of $1250.
Make sure to make your killbots with a pre-set kill limit. That way, they can be defeated by Zapp Brannigan by sending wave after wave of his own men at them.
Left-wing economics in the US seems predicated on the assumption that there is X amount of stuff to go around, and the 1% are using more than their share of stuff, and ought to give more to everyone else. The left-wing narrative sets the wealthy against the poor.
Actually, left-wing economics is predicated on the assumption that people with more wealth have more power to make economic decisions, and use that power to exploit those without wealth. Consider, for example, two candidates negotiating salary for identical positions at the same firm: Bob has 3 years of living expenses in the bank and a house owned free and clear, while Mike is broke and has a landlord breathing down his neck. And the potential employer can probably figure this out, because their address is usually somewhere on the application. Chances are good that Bob will get a much better offer than Mike.
And that even works when both parties are relatively wealthy. Consider a owner of a mid-sized business, who gets an offer to buy his business for $100 million. How much negotiation do you think that CEO will do, really, given that he stands to retire on a $100 million rather than run his business for the next 4 decades? Even if the business is worth more than that $100 million.
And it's worth pointing out that fishing and lobstering is also in trouble in Maine, because fishing and lobster stocks got really depleted about 15 years ago. So that leaves lumber, paper, farming (particularly blueberries, apples, eggs, and potatoes), maple syrup, shipbuilding, and tourism as your options for work.
It happens to big towns, too... Remove Disney from Orlando and see if anyone wants to hit the center of Florida in the middle of the summer.
Or if you want to see an example that actually happened, look at Flint MI without General Motors, which went from a prosperous manufacturing center of about 200,000 people to a bankrupt city half the size with the highest crime rate in America.
The ironic part is that their brand of fundamentalism is not a traditional belief at all; it only dates back to the 1950s or so.
The strains of thought that make up modern fundamentalist Christianity are significantly older than that: John Calvin (from the 1500's) in particular is responsible for a lot of that worldview, but it continued with Puritanism, was a core of the various Great Awakenings, and pretty well codified by John Scofield by 1909.
The political side of it isn't really new either: If you read the kind of rhetoric used by William Jennings Bryant, for example, you'll see a lot of resemblance to Rick Santorum.
Why do we celebrate $festival around the end of december?
Actually, there's a pretty sensible story behind that: It's because of the winter solstice. Once ancient people started figuring out the whole seasonality thing, they noticed the solstices, and decided to do their big annual gatherings around the solstices: Among other things, that kind of timing made it easier to figure out what day you were supposed to show up, rather than, say, some tribe walking into Stonehenge and saying "Where is everyone?" And yes, they probably did all their big religious and political activities on those days too, which makes total sense because that's when everyone would be in one large group rather than scattered all over the place.
The reason Christmas is in December is that the newly formed Christians realized it would be easier to convert people if they didn't have to convince them to change the day they were doing all their religious stuff.
I'd have a different answer: - It's legitimate licensing when you either are the firm using the patent, or approach them with reasonable terms before they produce the product. - It's trolling when you look for a successful product using an idea patented by somebody else, buy the patent, and then threaten to sue.
So let's say I have a patented process to harvest hemp that's more efficient than everyone else's. I find out that John Deere is working on a new line of harvester, so I go to Deere and say "I have a patented process for a hemp attachment that will make your harvester work better than anything anyone has built before. If you're interested, I can license it to you for X% of your earnings from that product line." That's different than if I have the same patent, wait until Deere has built a nice business from it, and sent a letter to Deere saying "Hang on, you owe me $14 gajillion."
There are some left-leaning politicians out there in the US, but they're few and far between. For example, Senator Bernie Sanders has been an avowed socialist his entire career.
Not entirely, but there are good reasons why the CPI is measured the way it is, and there's no particular reason why the government would want to mis-measure it. However, if you look at alternate inflation charts (created by someone who thinks that the government is lying about inflation), you will also see inflation from 2009-13 isn't unusually high.
The real issue that a lot of folks have trouble wrapping their brain around different levels of the money supply. What the Fed is doing when it's "printing money" is adding cash into MB, but since the banks aren't lending much that's not causing a big problem with M1 and M2.
Slashdot Mirror
Google may be doing this not for privacy reasons at all, but because they intend to sell the exclusive organic click information and don't want third parties having access to the same information they have about those clicks.
A kid's innocence is a precious thing, and it's a shame to squander it too early.
A kid's innocence often exists primarily in the mind of their parents.
Your 12-year-old son probably has at least a vague notion about the most common sexual acts engaged in by adults. He knows that people are sometimes murdered, raped, prostituted, drunk, or high. The way he knows this? The newspaper, TV, radio, books, movies lying around the house, older friends or siblings he has, and advertisements. He has also probably seen a girl or woman naked at some point, and may have been in a fist-fight or two.
An example of a father who was blindsided by this: Educator Geoff Canada, writing about a moment where someone said something on TV about a blowjob with his young daughters sitting next to him, and he freaked out only to find out that they were familiar with the subject. And this was a guy who works with troubled youth in the worst areas of New York City.
The sentiments aren't new. For example, here's an excerpt from What Did You Learn in School Today? by hippie-songwriter Tom Paxton:
What did you learn in school today,
Dear little child of mine?
What did you learn in school today,
Dear little child of mine?
I learned our government must be strong,
It's always right and never wrong.
Our leaders are the finest men,
So we elect them again and again.
That's what I learned in school today.
That's what I learned in school.
I have no problem with people believing in God. I have all sorts of problems with government-funded schools demanding that students say they believe in God.
The only problem is that government is allowing corporations to push their agenda in the classroom...
Well, it's not the only problem: I distinctly remember as an elementary school student getting "lessons" about how awesome the latest war effort was, and being required to sing patriotic songs, and of course the reciting of the Pledge of Allegience which requires students to profess a belief in God. Oh, and watching "Channel 1 News", which was sometimes informative but often not and supported by commercials.
Basically, the problem is that it's easier to dupe kids than it is adults, so there are lots of organizations who are positively salivating at the prospect.
Lahsi? I think you're mangoing my intent here.
"Yogurt! Yogurt! I hate Yogurt! Even with strawberries."
They don't care what you said or who you're talking to right now.
But let's say you started leading some sort of political movement to dismantle the NSA's surveillance of Americans. Do you think they'd then start to care what you said going back to the day they were able to start monitoring your conversations?
You also need to bring in Kim Jong Un to survey the scene with binoculars, even if you can't see the scene in question from the camera angle.
See, the funny thing about that is that I've had many very liberal opinions modded into oblivion solely for their conclusions. So I'm having a hard time getting convinced that there's some sort of liberal effort to mod down your posts.
I took the liberty of reviewing the recent posts of yours that had been modded down. In some cases, you indeed have a legitimate gripe: Reasonable people can differ about the correct way to handle the Syrian civil war, for example. But here's something else you wrote that got modded to -1 quickly:
Spending money on a bullshit "green" scams does not benefit mankind either. Green energy with Democrats in power is like defense with Republicans in power, a buzzword to facilitate transfer of taxpayer money to private hands.
Here are some legitimate reasons to mod that down:
1. The use of the words like "bullshit" and "scam" were unnecessarily abusive. You can argue that the programs in question are a poor use of funds without language like that.
2. You provided no evidence or logical argument for your position. Among other things, nothing in your post refuted the idea that the green energy programs were exactly what they said they were.
3. Since green energy programs cost taxpayers approximately 3.5% of the amount we spend on the military, equating them is misleading. (The 3.5% number comes from the $90 billion cited by the Romney campaign divided by approximately $2600 billion reportedly spent on the military over the same period.)
A non-troll post that would probably not get the same treatment would have been written something like this:
"Green energy programs in the past have not been very effective. After spending $90 billion on them, green sources still account for only 7.3% of energy consumption. This will be just yet another waste of money."
It sounds like you were screwed all right, but not by inflation:
(1) Your employer screwed you by freezing salaries. Were executive salaries frozen or cut during the same period? I doubt it.
(2) The federal government screwed you by making people like you ineligible for SNAP. This was probably because as bad as your life was / is, they got hit by millions of families who are in even worse shape. And, if you didn't see the news, the Republicans in the House just passed a bill to cut SNAP even more, which could mean several million more people like you will get screwed next year.
Inflation is at worst no higher than it was 25 years ago, and probably much lower, so it is unlikely to be the true source of your problems. Put the blame where it is due: Your boss, and people in Congress who believe that SNAP shouldn't exist.
Nothing but a bunch of idiotic, xenophobic racists over there, man, I swear.
A significant portion of America are idiotic, xenophobic racists. For example:
- In 2013, approximately 15% of Americans believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya, despite lots of evidence to the contrary.
- The newly crowned Miss America has brown skin and dark hair, because her parents were from India. There was a lot of online activity complaining about how horrible it was that we were giving the Miss America award to an Arab who was a member of Al Qaida.
- Based on recent elections for governor in my home state of Ohio, approximately one third of the electorate who typically vote Republican will not do so if their party's chosen candidate is black, regardless of other factors.
- "English-only" laws in many states in the US that prohibit state employees from conducting government business in any language other than English. The stated goal of these laws is to prevent other languages, particularly Spanish, from becoming the majority language in the US.
Serious question: What ideology or opinion constitutes, in your eyes, "the groupthink of the majority"?
The reason I ask is that I've had people complain about "groupthink" when they encounter resistance to ideas that are demonstrably absurd, e.g. "UFOs piloted by gray-skinned aliens visited Earth, abducting random people out of their beds."
However, someone who had only $20k in cash savings has been effectively crippled because the loss to their savings has a much nearer term effect on their quality of life.
Not necessarily. Using some examples with 2% inflation and real dollars:
- Your $20000 is now worth $19600, but your $90000 mortgage debt is now worth $88200, for a net gain of $1400. Especially if you have a fixed-rate mortgage, that means the bank assumed a certain level of inflation when determining your interest rate, and you are getting hurt if inflation is actually lower than that.
- Your $20000 is now worth $19600, but your boss gives you a corresponding raise from $25000 a year to $25500 a year, for a net gain of $100. Large employers in particular tend to factor this into annual reviews and the like.
- Your $20000 is now worth $19600, and you're an independent contractor, and your customer base was in either of the first two situations. So because they each have $750 more in disposable income, you can increase your prices from $100 to $105 an hour without risking losing customers, so you now go from making $25000 a year to $26250 a year, for a gain of $1250.
Make sure to make your killbots with a pre-set kill limit. That way, they can be defeated by Zapp Brannigan by sending wave after wave of his own men at them.
Left-wing economics in the US seems predicated on the assumption that there is X amount of stuff to go around, and the 1% are using more than their share of stuff, and ought to give more to everyone else. The left-wing narrative sets the wealthy against the poor.
Actually, left-wing economics is predicated on the assumption that people with more wealth have more power to make economic decisions, and use that power to exploit those without wealth. Consider, for example, two candidates negotiating salary for identical positions at the same firm: Bob has 3 years of living expenses in the bank and a house owned free and clear, while Mike is broke and has a landlord breathing down his neck. And the potential employer can probably figure this out, because their address is usually somewhere on the application. Chances are good that Bob will get a much better offer than Mike.
And that even works when both parties are relatively wealthy. Consider a owner of a mid-sized business, who gets an offer to buy his business for $100 million. How much negotiation do you think that CEO will do, really, given that he stands to retire on a $100 million rather than run his business for the next 4 decades? Even if the business is worth more than that $100 million.
Apparently, Yorkshiremen sound just like guys from Maine.
And it's worth pointing out that fishing and lobstering is also in trouble in Maine, because fishing and lobster stocks got really depleted about 15 years ago. So that leaves lumber, paper, farming (particularly blueberries, apples, eggs, and potatoes), maple syrup, shipbuilding, and tourism as your options for work.
It happens to big towns, too... Remove Disney from Orlando and see if anyone wants to hit the center of Florida in the middle of the summer.
Or if you want to see an example that actually happened, look at Flint MI without General Motors, which went from a prosperous manufacturing center of about 200,000 people to a bankrupt city half the size with the highest crime rate in America.
The ironic part is that their brand of fundamentalism is not a traditional belief at all; it only dates back to the 1950s or so.
The strains of thought that make up modern fundamentalist Christianity are significantly older than that: John Calvin (from the 1500's) in particular is responsible for a lot of that worldview, but it continued with Puritanism, was a core of the various Great Awakenings, and pretty well codified by John Scofield by 1909.
The political side of it isn't really new either: If you read the kind of rhetoric used by William Jennings Bryant, for example, you'll see a lot of resemblance to Rick Santorum.
Why do we celebrate $festival around the end of december?
Actually, there's a pretty sensible story behind that: It's because of the winter solstice. Once ancient people started figuring out the whole seasonality thing, they noticed the solstices, and decided to do their big annual gatherings around the solstices: Among other things, that kind of timing made it easier to figure out what day you were supposed to show up, rather than, say, some tribe walking into Stonehenge and saying "Where is everyone?" And yes, they probably did all their big religious and political activities on those days too, which makes total sense because that's when everyone would be in one large group rather than scattered all over the place.
The reason Christmas is in December is that the newly formed Christians realized it would be easier to convert people if they didn't have to convince them to change the day they were doing all their religious stuff.
I'd have a different answer:
- It's legitimate licensing when you either are the firm using the patent, or approach them with reasonable terms before they produce the product.
- It's trolling when you look for a successful product using an idea patented by somebody else, buy the patent, and then threaten to sue.
So let's say I have a patented process to harvest hemp that's more efficient than everyone else's. I find out that John Deere is working on a new line of harvester, so I go to Deere and say "I have a patented process for a hemp attachment that will make your harvester work better than anything anyone has built before. If you're interested, I can license it to you for X% of your earnings from that product line." That's different than if I have the same patent, wait until Deere has built a nice business from it, and sent a letter to Deere saying "Hang on, you owe me $14 gajillion."
Secret police? We've had one of those for decades, called the FBI.
There are some left-leaning politicians out there in the US, but they're few and far between. For example, Senator Bernie Sanders has been an avowed socialist his entire career.
Do you trust the CPI as a measure of inflation?
Not entirely, but there are good reasons why the CPI is measured the way it is, and there's no particular reason why the government would want to mis-measure it. However, if you look at alternate inflation charts (created by someone who thinks that the government is lying about inflation), you will also see inflation from 2009-13 isn't unusually high.
The real issue that a lot of folks have trouble wrapping their brain around different levels of the money supply. What the Fed is doing when it's "printing money" is adding cash into MB, but since the banks aren't lending much that's not causing a big problem with M1 and M2.