The people that would be influenced by Google are the same ones influenced by People magazine and major TV networks.
I think that you have not understood.
Google is not directly influencing in the scenario I laid out as you would see from a newspaper article or so. What Google could do is far more influential. What do you when you want to learn about something? Chances are, like most folks, you do a Google search and read the related articles, right? Of course you do. How else would you find it? Let's say you are climate change denier and you want to find articles which reinforce your view or to persuade others to think like you. What if when you searched for terms like "climate change is bullshit" or "climate change hoax" on Google, the only returns were from articles where former climate deniers admitted they were wrong and said climate change is real. Plus article after article explaining how your babies will die because of climate change.
That is real influence. Controlling the information that people can access. There is nothing more powerful than that.
It is a simple fact that they had a mind to, they could drastically impact the elections.
Nearly 90% of the people out there use Google to search for information about everything from the political to lolcatz. All they would need to do is omit some results from the search and place others high in the list. They can even insert propaganda into seemingly unrelated searches. Something perhaps designed to manufacture rage at one particular party or candidate.
Controlling all information to have complete power.
Imagine if google and bing decided that a certain candidate didn't exist and the name only returned some unrelated items. No news article links, no info sites, nothing.
I'd prefer we just leave beef alone, let the price increase as demand increases, and place artificial limits on production. Seems like everyone would be better off, and the environment would be as well.
That is all well and good in western countries, there is however a down side to the increased price of beef. For example, the massive deforestation of Brazil due to illegal cattle farming which is sold to the West at a very tidy profit. If you double the price of beef there would be loads more people trying to illegally farm. Not to say there is anything wrong with making a living, but unregulated cattle farms play hell with the local ecology.
Well, of course they are not cheap... It's got a cop motor, a four hundred and forty cubic inch plant, it's got cop tires, cop suspensions, cop shocks, it's a model made before catalytic converters, so it'll run good on regular gas.
I think you mean figuratively sucking the blood of the new generation. Since, you know, the heart pumps the blood out, so there is no sucking required.;)
Class action suit admits that customers only want google for search and would not be willing to buy a phone that searched with Bing. How is following consumer demand anti-trust? There is a reason that everyone uses google and only google. Yes I know there are a couple people out there who use something else, but you are a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the user base. Also, I am not sure these guys know it, but Android is free to install. Should google be forced to let you use their product to make money without getting anything in return?
It is estimated that the LOC, including video and audio is about 3000 TB. So, you would need 17 of these tapes I guess. http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpr... Or was your question rhetorical?
It seems that even though it could destroy a city every 100 years, in actual fact I has never happened in recorded history. I am not saying we should not keep a look out, but I am pretty sure we can go to bed and still wake up without our city being a waste land.
I am not sure if you are aware of this, but in the rest of the world you can buy an extremely efficient diesel car. Hell, my Jag gets 40mpg!(US, not UK).
Some years ago we had a VW polo. That thing got 65 MPG and even had a diesel particulate filter so its emission level were very low.
In my opinion, a modern diesel is much, much cleaner over-all than a shitty Prius.
While I agree with you that we must find a way to get the ass-hats out of here, I do not agree with direct-democracy. In fact, direct-democracy is absolute evil. Direct-democracy is a system designed for a small majority to crush the basic rights of a minority. Direct-democracy is mob-rule by a fancier name.
I also do not really agree with big punishments for not doing what their constituencies tell them. Why? Because voters are stupid greedy animals. Think about it, voters are why we are in the situation we are in now! They cannot be trusted to serve the best interest of society. A better idea, in my opinion at least, would be punishments for not serving the best interest of society they are elected to govern. Corruption should carry massive punishments. Depending on the scope, as far as life in prison or a firing squad.
While I agree with you that OO/LO can handle much of what word is used for, I completely disagree that these are a suitable replacement for excel. I have tried LO/OO on both mine and my wife's laptops as we both tend to do a lot of work while at home and do not wish to always bring our computers home. For someone who is a "power user" of excel, these two programs are simply not sufficient. The general performance issues aside, the functionality you get with excel 2013 just cannot be matched right now by OS software. I wish it could because it would have saved my 300 bucks. After a week of use, my wife said she would continue to just bring her work laptop home until I bought "real" office.
I never said I hate globalization. In fact, it is a good thing. However, we have different ideas of what efficient means. For you, it is more "efficient" for you to poor your left over chemicals down the kitchen sink or into the street gutters to be washed into the ocean. That saves you time AND money! What could be better! I find it more "efficient" to think about my actions and protect the places my offspring inhabit by bringing my left over chemicals to a proper disposal place. In terms of time and money, I "spend" more up front. In the long run however, my drinking water is not poison.
It is a fact that the biggest polluters in China are foreign owned firms, or Chinese firms producing good at the lowest possible price for a multinational. Same idea like with you and your chemicals, except here we are talking about an industrial scale. Or, do you think because it is done on an industrial scale that it is more "efficient"?
I have often said to people that there is a reason why things are so cheap at these big box stores.
I do not say this as a critique of China or which ever country is producing low cost products, but rather as a critique of Western culture and "acquire more crap at all costs" mentality. China is just filling our demand. Sadly, we tend not to think about the real price of what and where they buy thing. What the human costs of not supporting our local economy is. We do not think about HOW theses items are so cheap compared to locally produced goods. We do not think twice about buying goods from a US company which closes his factories in America or Europe to sweat shops in China or India.
I do my best to source my goods locally, but it getting more and more difficult. The fact is, local producers of most items cannot compete because westerns are not willing or not able to pay what it actually "costs" to produce.
Now, the fruits of this are coming to bear. From a polluted planet to not getting a living wage. I wish it would turn around, but it won't.
What she is really saying is, "Fuck you Citizen! We are the Government and will do as we like. We are not concerned that nearly all Americans and 100% of foreign nationals are appalled by our actions. Go back to playing with your iPhones while us grownups take care of business".
My wife, who is an exec in company which produces very high end precision components from both milling and molding has told me that the owner of the firm is very afraid for the future of the business because of 3D metal printing. I, however have told her I do not agree at all. Rather, I see 3D printing as a great opportunity for her firm to make even more complex components which today cannot be made. Her point is that anyone will be able to do it though. Sure, maybe they could, but I think they won't. Of course, there will be some folks who want their own 3D metal printer, but it will be decades before they are so cheap that a person can just buy it without thinking about it, like an ink jet. Much of my work is in the automotive sector, as is much of my wife's customer base. One thing that I have learned about auto manufactures. They do not make their own parts and they do not want to make their own parts. They never will either. They spec out the new model and source the bits and pieces from various suppliers. Then, they put them all together. This is true for most industries I think. In fact, I would say that 3D printers will actually let you expand into other market segments.
What does slashdot think? Will everyone really print at home and more importantly, will business just print their own bits?
Slashdot Mirror
The people that would be influenced by Google are the same ones influenced by People magazine and major TV networks.
I think that you have not understood.
Google is not directly influencing in the scenario I laid out as you would see from a newspaper article or so.
What Google could do is far more influential.
What do you when you want to learn about something? Chances are, like most folks, you do a Google search and read the related articles, right? Of course you do. How else would you find it?
Let's say you are climate change denier and you want to find articles which reinforce your view or to persuade others to think like you. What if when you searched for terms like "climate change is bullshit" or "climate change hoax" on Google, the only returns were from articles where former climate deniers admitted they were wrong and said climate change is real. Plus article after article explaining how your babies will die because of climate change.
That is real influence. Controlling the information that people can access. There is nothing more powerful than that.
It is a simple fact that they had a mind to, they could drastically impact the elections.
Nearly 90% of the people out there use Google to search for information about everything from the political to lolcatz.
All they would need to do is omit some results from the search and place others high in the list. They can even insert propaganda into seemingly unrelated searches.
Something perhaps designed to manufacture rage at one particular party or candidate.
Controlling all information to have complete power.
Imagine if google and bing decided that a certain candidate didn't exist and the name only returned some unrelated items. No news article links, no info sites, nothing.
I'd prefer we just leave beef alone, let the price increase as demand increases, and place artificial limits on production. Seems like everyone would be better off, and the environment would be as well.
That is all well and good in western countries, there is however a down side to the increased price of beef.
For example, the massive deforestation of Brazil due to illegal cattle farming which is sold to the West at a very tidy profit. If you double the price of beef there would be loads more people trying to illegally farm.
Not to say there is anything wrong with making a living, but unregulated cattle farms play hell with the local ecology.
and also....first post.
It is NOT climate change anymore. It is called climate disruption.
http://politics.slashdot.org/s...
Cops cars have never been cheap.
Well, of course they are not cheap...
It's got a cop motor, a four hundred and forty cubic inch plant, it's got cop tires, cop suspensions, cop shocks, it's a model made before catalytic converters, so it'll run good on regular gas.
I think you mean figuratively sucking the blood of the new generation. Since, you know, the heart pumps the blood out, so there is no sucking required. ;)
I am really asking.
Class action suit admits that customers only want google for search and would not be willing to buy a phone that searched with Bing. How is following consumer demand anti-trust?
There is a reason that everyone uses google and only google. Yes I know there are a couple people out there who use something else, but you are a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the user base.
Also, I am not sure these guys know it, but Android is free to install.
Should google be forced to let you use their product to make money without getting anything in return?
It is estimated that the LOC, including video and audio is about 3000 TB. So, you would need 17 of these tapes I guess.
http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpr...
Or was your question rhetorical?
That's amazing! That is the exact name I had for my ex wife!
It seems that even though it could destroy a city every 100 years, in actual fact I has never happened in recorded history.
I am not saying we should not keep a look out, but I am pretty sure we can go to bed and still wake up without our city being a waste land.
If I do, I could be there in what, 25k years..round about?
After all, Mericans are always saying to me "if ya don't like it, git'out".
I am not sure if you are aware of this, but in the rest of the world you can buy an extremely efficient diesel car. Hell, my Jag gets 40mpg!(US, not UK).
Some years ago we had a VW polo. That thing got 65 MPG and even had a diesel particulate filter so its emission level were very low.
In my opinion, a modern diesel is much, much cleaner over-all than a shitty Prius.
Maybe we are the ones made of antimatter and what we consider to be antimatter is asking "why are we made of matter".
Shooting rockers at them.
Ever turned on Fox news?
While I agree with you that we must find a way to get the ass-hats out of here, I do not agree with direct-democracy. In fact, direct-democracy is absolute evil.
Direct-democracy is a system designed for a small majority to crush the basic rights of a minority. Direct-democracy is mob-rule by a fancier name.
I also do not really agree with big punishments for not doing what their constituencies tell them. Why? Because voters are stupid greedy animals. Think about it, voters are why we are in the situation we are in now! They cannot be trusted to serve the best interest of society.
A better idea, in my opinion at least, would be punishments for not serving the best interest of society they are elected to govern. Corruption should carry massive punishments. Depending on the scope, as far as life in prison or a firing squad.
I thought he was South African?
Of course it doesn't make you better at math. I know this because when I was in the military, I was electrocuted more times than I can ...count.
While I agree with you that OO/LO can handle much of what word is used for, I completely disagree that these are a suitable replacement for excel.
I have tried LO/OO on both mine and my wife's laptops as we both tend to do a lot of work while at home and do not wish to always bring our computers home.
For someone who is a "power user" of excel, these two programs are simply not sufficient.
The general performance issues aside, the functionality you get with excel 2013 just cannot be matched right now by OS software. I wish it could because it would have saved my 300 bucks.
After a week of use, my wife said she would continue to just bring her work laptop home until I bought "real" office.
we all know what Kentucky thinks about foreigners.
That is utter crap.
I never said I hate globalization. In fact, it is a good thing. However, we have different ideas of what efficient means.
For you, it is more "efficient" for you to poor your left over chemicals down the kitchen sink or into the street gutters to be washed into the ocean. That saves you time AND money! What could be better!
I find it more "efficient" to think about my actions and protect the places my offspring inhabit by bringing my left over chemicals to a proper disposal place. In terms of time and money, I "spend" more up front. In the long run however, my drinking water is not poison.
It is a fact that the biggest polluters in China are foreign owned firms, or Chinese firms producing good at the lowest possible price for a multinational. Same idea like with you and your chemicals, except here we are talking about an industrial scale.
Or, do you think because it is done on an industrial scale that it is more "efficient"?
I have often said to people that there is a reason why things are so cheap at these big box stores.
I do not say this as a critique of China or which ever country is producing low cost products, but rather as a critique of Western culture and "acquire more crap at all costs" mentality. China is just filling our demand.
Sadly, we tend not to think about the real price of what and where they buy thing. What the human costs of not supporting our local economy is.
We do not think about HOW theses items are so cheap compared to locally produced goods. We do not think twice about buying goods from a US company which closes his factories in America or Europe to sweat shops in China or India.
I do my best to source my goods locally, but it getting more and more difficult. The fact is, local producers of most items cannot compete because westerns are not willing or not able to pay what it actually "costs" to produce.
Now, the fruits of this are coming to bear. From a polluted planet to not getting a living wage. I wish it would turn around, but it won't.
What she is really saying is, "Fuck you Citizen! We are the Government and will do as we like. We are not concerned that nearly all Americans and 100% of foreign nationals are appalled by our actions. Go back to playing with your iPhones while us grownups take care of business".
My wife, who is an exec in company which produces very high end precision components from both milling and molding has told me that the owner of the firm is very afraid for the future of the business because of 3D metal printing.
I, however have told her I do not agree at all. Rather, I see 3D printing as a great opportunity for her firm to make even more complex components which today cannot be made. Her point is that anyone will be able to do it though.
Sure, maybe they could, but I think they won't. Of course, there will be some folks who want their own 3D metal printer, but it will be decades before they are so cheap that a person can just buy it without thinking about it, like an ink jet.
Much of my work is in the automotive sector, as is much of my wife's customer base. One thing that I have learned about auto manufactures. They do not make their own parts and they do not want to make their own parts. They never will either. They spec out the new model and source the bits and pieces from various suppliers. Then, they put them all together.
This is true for most industries I think.
In fact, I would say that 3D printers will actually let you expand into other market segments.
What does slashdot think? Will everyone really print at home and more importantly, will business just print their own bits?