Well, I can't. There are a lot of things we can't verify..... like, how much spyware, backdoors, and trackingware is inside those Chrome binaries? Inside MS-Windows? Inside MacOS? But we *KNOW* that Google tracks everyone to hell and back on google.com.
So if there is any tracking with Startpage (against what they claim) then at least it is not from Google.
>" What's a concerned citizen of the internet to do? Here's one no-brainer: Stop using Chrome and switch to Firefox."
Many of us, myself included, have NEVER used Chrome and still use Firefox on all our systems. Yes, that is a no-brainer if you value your privacy.
In the earlier days of Chrome, Firefox performance stagnated and Chrome was fast and lean. But that was less of a concern to many of us. Still, many switched primarily for that reason (with apparently no concern about closed binaries and privacy). Well, that reason is certainly gone now!
Oh, and make sure to not use http://google.com/ for searching.... another no-brainer. I would recommend http://startpage.com/ or similar. Same results, no tracking.
>"I don't disagree. The problem is, any change to fix things will require changing laws, which has to be passed by Congress, which is filled with the two parties in power. So basically the political parties need to choose to make themselves less powerful, which they're not going to do."
Actually, that is not completely correct. The States are in charge of how voting is conducted for both State and Federal elections, not Congress. It is surely impossible to get Congress to make such a change. But it is less than impossible to get individual States to do it for themselves.... one already has (partially, at least, in Maine). Don't get me wrong, it would still be very difficult, because the two parties in State governments will fight it also, but at least there is a chance. It can start with localities, where it is quite possible. People will get used to it and see that it actually works and then start demanding it for State seat elections. Then, eventually, that will put pressure on the State to also do it for Federal elections.
>"However, I would submit that representation is the system to change not the voting. If I and 50,000 of my friends has a voice in government, perhaps we might be heard."
Representation means almost nothing if the only two choices that are actually available don't represent you and both suck. The voting system is the main problem, by far- the current "first past the post" system effectively ONLY allow 2 parties, ever. Primaries are a little better, but not by a lot- they need instant runoff voting, too.
>"Just to say it: I'm not a Democrat. I'm actually pretty conservative, but I increasingly have to argue in defense of "liberals" because Republicans have lost their goddamn minds. At this point, the Democratic party is the conservative party, and the Republican party has embraced radical and reckless policies. They seem content to burn the house down with themselves in it, just so long as Democrats get burned too"
I will say it too: I don't consider myself Democrat nor Republican, perhaps more semi-Libertarian than anything. I think both major parties are crazy and both want to burn down everything. The partisanship and polarization is just insane these days. Both parties seem content to Federalize everything, strip liberty and privacy, spew out endless legislation, and spend until the debt is uncountable. To me, both seem corrupt to the core.... far more concerned about their party and themselves than the country or the citizens.
We desperately need a new voting system in primaries and all elections that will allow for other parties to compete, thrive, and threaten the two major ones who have lost their way. For many of us, neither "main" party aligns well. We end up holding our noses and voting for what we think is the least bad or we are forced into single-issue voting which brings a lot of unwanted baggage with it.
>"Those on the left and those on the right argue about limited government. "
I agree with most of what you said, and it was well written, except that above line. It is unclear what you mean. You could mean that both argue FOR HAVING limited government, or you could mean that both just argue ABOUT [with each other, presumably] whether the government should be limited or not. Strictly speaking, I would think the latter, not the former.
It is pretty well known that the "left" rarely argues in favor of limited government, they tend to want more and more government. More laws, more regulations, more taxes, more government spending, more government ownership of infrastructure, services, land, resources, etc, more forced "redistribution of wealth", more Federal instead of State control.
There is a huge difference between everything you just listed and having 100% mandated monitoring of where every vehicle is all the time.
Where you go ON FOOT is public information when you are outdoors, off your property. Do you think it would be OK to require everyone to wear a GPS bracelet whenever off his/her own property?
What you say is public information when you are outdoors, presumably off your property. Do you think it would be OK to require everyone to wear microphones on their clothes to transmit what they say whenever on public property?
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. And it doesn't matter how many "protection" laws we create, they will be broken when it is convenient for mainstream government, ignored by the 3-letter agencies from the start, bused by non-government entities, hacked by criminals, and act as a gateway for more and more intrusiveness as people "get used to it".
>"If we ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, as they have done in Australia, we could protect school children and the rest of us."
You are 100% wrong. The last school murdering, in Texas was done with a revolver, a shotgun, and [not deployed] bombs.
1) Was it an "assault revolver"? No. Revolvers typically hold ONLY 6 rounds and have been around for hundreds of years. They have ZERO magazines.
2) Was it an "assault shotgun"? No. Again, been around forever, typically hold only 2 to 5 rounds, and have ZERO magazines.
3) Bombs are not guns. By the way, "assault cars" and vans are not guns. Knives are not guns. Gasoline, axes, bowes, pressure cookers, etc are all not guns.
The problem is not simple. It isn't guns in the hands of good people, which is often the only thing that keeps things in check AND it is the only real thing that additional gun control affects the most. The problems are:
1) Untreated mental health problems
2) Way too much media coverage and sensationalism that causes copy-cating.
3) Unarmed trained guards and unarmed trained staff that can't do anything about murder sprees until it is too late. There is often to the point of almost always zero armed resistance. And there is zero deterrence, due to the same reason.
4) Insecure facilities with too many uncontrolled entrances and lack of defenses.
5) Underenforced EXISTING laws. It is already illegal to sell guns of any type or capacity to the mentally ill or felons. It is already illegal to buy or possess guns of any type or capacity by the mentally ill or felons.
6) This one is controversial and not proven yet, but possibly putting way too many children/teens on psychotropic drugs and without enough careful monitoring of their use.
7) Lack of child supervision, teaching morality (in whatever form that takes), involvement in their lives, and true caring by their parent(s). Lack of holding children responsible for what they do (with real consequences) and preparing them to be adults.
There are probably some others, but I think those are the main factors. Despite the sensationalism, school murders are still very, very rare when you look at all the data. Kids are far, far, far more likely to die of dozens of other things than a "mass shooting". And there is no way to have a free society without some amount of risk.
How does this do anything for the ~90% using Android (non-Apple) devices? Were they able to get Google to comply too? (And side-loading on Android is built-in).
>"Did you even RTFA? The GCat group is catching felines on the Googleplex campus."
Sorry, I missed that. In true Slashdot fashion, I only read the summary. Funny how the summary neglected to mention that one every important little piece of information- it would have added only three words. Yeesh.
>"That's not true"..."The correct thing to do is to trap, spay/neuter, and release."
??? That is exactly what they are doing (by the way it is "castrate/spay", "neutering" is not sex specific, it is the removal of either male or female sex organs). They are trapping and neutering and trying to re-home them and marking and releasing those that can't be re-homed. And that will, indeed, help to end the problem because neutered cats cannot breed.
So what exactly is "untrue" that you are siting? It sounds like you are actually agreeing with me and with what the volunteers are doing...
Suing a company for providing what customers want and need? It would be different if they were NOT giving what people wanted or were misleading their customers or they were directly damaging the environment or workers during/in production. Suing for climate change really makes little sense. This is a regulatory issue. It would be like suing car makers because cars create traffic jams, suing cattle ranchers because cows emit methane, suing paving companies because people are killed on roads more than when not on roads, or suing salt miners because salt is used a lot in winter climate areas and can contaminate the surrounding soil.
If you want to address climate change, then first and foremost, create innovative and competitive alternatives. Find ways to minimize the impact of existing systems. Find ways to reduce demand through efficiency. Educate people and consumers. And down the list, use sensible economic incentives to stimulate the above.
>"Cats can send for themselves. Putting out food will only lead to more cats, not fewer. It's just plain misguided and harmful."
Putting out food does not lead to more cats. Feeding FERTILE cats leads to more cats. Neutered cats cannot reproduce. Yes, neutered feral cats can and will still kill wildlife, but only for their short (due to being outdoors) lifespan. And although they will still instinctively kill prey even when artificially fed, they do so at a much, much lower rate.
>"No, the best possible thing would be to have the cats that can't be given homes euthanized."
To many people, me included, killing the cats is not the best thing at all. The best possible thing would be to ALSO protect the owls, by taking steps to protect them- like moving the feeding stations away from nesting sites, putting up deterrents, etc.
1) It is not up to an employer to control their employee's extra-work life. THAT is evil.
2) Discriminating against employees or potential employees for performing such volunteer is insane. THAT is also evil.
3) Gun arguments have nothing to do with this thread. If you wanted to go down such a crazy path, an equivalent would be Google holding back services to CUSTOMERS for something they don't "like".
People blaming Google in this case are just plain stupid. The finger should be pointed at all the horrible pet owners that don't neuter their pets and then allow those un-neutered pets to escape to the "wild". It also looks like this is a group of Google's employees, which doesn't mean "Google". Finally, these volunteers are doing exactly the best possible thing- capturing and neutering them all and trying to home those cats they can. The problems will quickly diminish over just one generation.
>"Disney is thoroughly destroying the franchise. Capitalism for the win!"
Yeah, because, you know, Socialism would fix that problem so well. Here is news for you- as a *customer* in capitalism, you have a voice and get to speak with your wallet. And it does speak loudly. If you don't like the crap that Disney is putting out, then don't spend any money on it. Otherwise, Disney is giving people what they are willing to pay for. "Central planning" won't be any more effective with the arts than it would with most any other industry.
Without capitalism and a free market, Star Wars wouldn't have existed in the first place.
Most working people can't earn ANY wages & benefits without corporations to employ them. It takes two to tango- if either is too powerful, it doesn't run well.
You can drop a phone JUST RIGHT only a few feet from soft ground and have it shatter, or the same phone from 5 feet on concrete and it survive fine. A sample size of 1 tells you almost nothing. I would venture it would take at least 10 drops, each test being a NEW phone, before you could get even a slight chance of knowing anything useful. And even then, it would only tell you about that height and that material it was dropped onto. Of course, that would be VERY expensive testing!
Even discounting the sample sizes of just ONE phone, dropped REPEATEDLY, who actually carries a phone without at least SOME type of case? Nobody I know...
I still have 7 movies in my queue for years now that say "unknown" for availability. And some of them are quite mainstream and even in a series. One example is "The Matrix Revolutions" Bluray. They have all the OTHER Matrixes, but not that one. Have been waiting at least a year on that one now. Another is "Gladiator" Bluray- at least a year on that one too.
>"And it's "right to work" states you are upset with... You know the ones with the low unemployment numbers to go along with those low percentages of union jobs? Employers LOVE "right to work" states... "
Yet "right to work" states have it right. It means that unions cannot REQUIRE/FORCE ALL employees to join their union. Employers and most employees like right to work states, because they both have freedom. Workers still have a right to form a union if they want, or even more than one union; and they have a right to not join a union.
It is exactly the NO "right to work" states that saw unions take over everything and raise the costs so high as to put tons of corporations out of business because they could no longer compete. Wages and benefits went *ridiculously* high for even the most menial and unskilled jobs. Just as bad- the red tape to fire or demote bad and under-performing workers was so insane that employers were also stuck with an overall poor workforce that also could not adapt.
Slashdot Mirror
>"Yeah? How do you verify that?"
Well, I can't. There are a lot of things we can't verify..... like, how much spyware, backdoors, and trackingware is inside those Chrome binaries? Inside MS-Windows? Inside MacOS? But we *KNOW* that Google tracks everyone to hell and back on google.com.
So if there is any tracking with Startpage (against what they claim) then at least it is not from Google.
>" What's a concerned citizen of the internet to do? Here's one no-brainer: Stop using Chrome and switch to Firefox."
Many of us, myself included, have NEVER used Chrome and still use Firefox on all our systems. Yes, that is a no-brainer if you value your privacy.
In the earlier days of Chrome, Firefox performance stagnated and Chrome was fast and lean. But that was less of a concern to many of us. Still, many switched primarily for that reason (with apparently no concern about closed binaries and privacy). Well, that reason is certainly gone now!
Oh, and make sure to not use http://google.com/ for searching.... another no-brainer. I would recommend http://startpage.com/ or similar. Same results, no tracking.
>"I don't disagree. The problem is, any change to fix things will require changing laws, which has to be passed by Congress, which is filled with the two parties in power. So basically the political parties need to choose to make themselves less powerful, which they're not going to do."
Actually, that is not completely correct. The States are in charge of how voting is conducted for both State and Federal elections, not Congress. It is surely impossible to get Congress to make such a change. But it is less than impossible to get individual States to do it for themselves.... one already has (partially, at least, in Maine). Don't get me wrong, it would still be very difficult, because the two parties in State governments will fight it also, but at least there is a chance. It can start with localities, where it is quite possible. People will get used to it and see that it actually works and then start demanding it for State seat elections. Then, eventually, that will put pressure on the State to also do it for Federal elections.
http://www.fairvote.org/spotli...
>"However, I would submit that representation is the system to change not the voting. If I and 50,000 of my friends has a voice in government, perhaps we might be heard."
Representation means almost nothing if the only two choices that are actually available don't represent you and both suck. The voting system is the main problem, by far- the current "first past the post" system effectively ONLY allow 2 parties, ever. Primaries are a little better, but not by a lot- they need instant runoff voting, too.
>"Just to say it: I'm not a Democrat. I'm actually pretty conservative, but I increasingly have to argue in defense of "liberals" because Republicans have lost their goddamn minds. At this point, the Democratic party is the conservative party, and the Republican party has embraced radical and reckless policies. They seem content to burn the house down with themselves in it, just so long as Democrats get burned too"
I will say it too: I don't consider myself Democrat nor Republican, perhaps more semi-Libertarian than anything. I think both major parties are crazy and both want to burn down everything. The partisanship and polarization is just insane these days. Both parties seem content to Federalize everything, strip liberty and privacy, spew out endless legislation, and spend until the debt is uncountable. To me, both seem corrupt to the core.... far more concerned about their party and themselves than the country or the citizens.
We desperately need a new voting system in primaries and all elections that will allow for other parties to compete, thrive, and threaten the two major ones who have lost their way. For many of us, neither "main" party aligns well. We end up holding our noses and voting for what we think is the least bad or we are forced into single-issue voting which brings a lot of unwanted baggage with it.
http://fairvote.org/
>"Those on the left and those on the right argue about limited government. "
I agree with most of what you said, and it was well written, except that above line. It is unclear what you mean. You could mean that both argue FOR HAVING limited government, or you could mean that both just argue ABOUT [with each other, presumably] whether the government should be limited or not. Strictly speaking, I would think the latter, not the former.
It is pretty well known that the "left" rarely argues in favor of limited government, they tend to want more and more government. More laws, more regulations, more taxes, more government spending, more government ownership of infrastructure, services, land, resources, etc, more forced "redistribution of wealth", more Federal instead of State control.
There is a huge difference between everything you just listed and having 100% mandated monitoring of where every vehicle is all the time.
Where you go ON FOOT is public information when you are outdoors, off your property. Do you think it would be OK to require everyone to wear a GPS bracelet whenever off his/her own property?
What you say is public information when you are outdoors, presumably off your property. Do you think it would be OK to require everyone to wear microphones on their clothes to transmit what they say whenever on public property?
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. And it doesn't matter how many "protection" laws we create, they will be broken when it is convenient for mainstream government, ignored by the 3-letter agencies from the start, bused by non-government entities, hacked by criminals, and act as a gateway for more and more intrusiveness as people "get used to it".
>"If we ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, as they have done in Australia, we could protect school children and the rest of us."
You are 100% wrong. The last school murdering, in Texas was done with a revolver, a shotgun, and [not deployed] bombs.
1) Was it an "assault revolver"? No. Revolvers typically hold ONLY 6 rounds and have been around for hundreds of years. They have ZERO magazines.
2) Was it an "assault shotgun"? No. Again, been around forever, typically hold only 2 to 5 rounds, and have ZERO magazines.
3) Bombs are not guns. By the way, "assault cars" and vans are not guns. Knives are not guns. Gasoline, axes, bowes, pressure cookers, etc are all not guns.
The problem is not simple. It isn't guns in the hands of good people, which is often the only thing that keeps things in check AND it is the only real thing that additional gun control affects the most. The problems are:
1) Untreated mental health problems
2) Way too much media coverage and sensationalism that causes copy-cating.
3) Unarmed trained guards and unarmed trained staff that can't do anything about murder sprees until it is too late. There is often to the point of almost always zero armed resistance. And there is zero deterrence, due to the same reason.
4) Insecure facilities with too many uncontrolled entrances and lack of defenses.
5) Underenforced EXISTING laws. It is already illegal to sell guns of any type or capacity to the mentally ill or felons. It is already illegal to buy or possess guns of any type or capacity by the mentally ill or felons.
6) This one is controversial and not proven yet, but possibly putting way too many children/teens on psychotropic drugs and without enough careful monitoring of their use.
7) Lack of child supervision, teaching morality (in whatever form that takes), involvement in their lives, and true caring by their parent(s). Lack of holding children responsible for what they do (with real consequences) and preparing them to be adults.
There are probably some others, but I think those are the main factors. Despite the sensationalism, school murders are still very, very rare when you look at all the data. Kids are far, far, far more likely to die of dozens of other things than a "mass shooting". And there is no way to have a free society without some amount of risk.
How does this do anything for the ~90% using Android (non-Apple) devices? Were they able to get Google to comply too? (And side-loading on Android is built-in).
>"Did you even RTFA? The GCat group is catching felines on the Googleplex campus."
Sorry, I missed that. In true Slashdot fashion, I only read the summary. Funny how the summary neglected to mention that one every important little piece of information- it would have added only three words. Yeesh.
>"Removing them from the environment doesn't help. They need to be trapped, fixed, and re-released."
Ah, now I see the disconnect. I misread the summary- they rehome kittens and friendly adults and only neuter the unadoptable one that they release.
It would be better if they did what I thought they were doing- neutering them all; both the ones adopted out and the ones released.
>"Removing them from the environment doesn't help. They need to be trapped, fixed, and re-released."
That is what they are doing. That is what I said.
>"That's not true"..."The correct thing to do is to trap, spay/neuter, and release."
??? That is exactly what they are doing (by the way it is "castrate/spay", "neutering" is not sex specific, it is the removal of either male or female sex organs). They are trapping and neutering and trying to re-home them and marking and releasing those that can't be re-homed. And that will, indeed, help to end the problem because neutered cats cannot breed.
So what exactly is "untrue" that you are siting? It sounds like you are actually agreeing with me and with what the volunteers are doing...
Suing a company for providing what customers want and need? It would be different if they were NOT giving what people wanted or were misleading their customers or they were directly damaging the environment or workers during/in production. Suing for climate change really makes little sense. This is a regulatory issue. It would be like suing car makers because cars create traffic jams, suing cattle ranchers because cows emit methane, suing paving companies because people are killed on roads more than when not on roads, or suing salt miners because salt is used a lot in winter climate areas and can contaminate the surrounding soil.
If you want to address climate change, then first and foremost, create innovative and competitive alternatives. Find ways to minimize the impact of existing systems. Find ways to reduce demand through efficiency. Educate people and consumers. And down the list, use sensible economic incentives to stimulate the above.
>"Cats can send for themselves. Putting out food will only lead to more cats, not fewer. It's just plain misguided and harmful."
Putting out food does not lead to more cats. Feeding FERTILE cats leads to more cats. Neutered cats cannot reproduce. Yes, neutered feral cats can and will still kill wildlife, but only for their short (due to being outdoors) lifespan. And although they will still instinctively kill prey even when artificially fed, they do so at a much, much lower rate.
>"No, the best possible thing would be to have the cats that can't be given homes euthanized."
To many people, me included, killing the cats is not the best thing at all. The best possible thing would be to ALSO protect the owls, by taking steps to protect them- like moving the feeding stations away from nesting sites, putting up deterrents, etc.
Sorry, but
1) It is not up to an employer to control their employee's extra-work life. THAT is evil.
2) Discriminating against employees or potential employees for performing such volunteer is insane. THAT is also evil.
3) Gun arguments have nothing to do with this thread. If you wanted to go down such a crazy path, an equivalent would be Google holding back services to CUSTOMERS for something they don't "like".
People blaming Google in this case are just plain stupid. The finger should be pointed at all the horrible pet owners that don't neuter their pets and then allow those un-neutered pets to escape to the "wild". It also looks like this is a group of Google's employees, which doesn't mean "Google". Finally, these volunteers are doing exactly the best possible thing- capturing and neutering them all and trying to home those cats they can. The problems will quickly diminish over just one generation.
>"I think you are confusing communism with socialism."
No I didn't.
>"Disney is thoroughly destroying the franchise. Capitalism for the win!"
Yeah, because, you know, Socialism would fix that problem so well. Here is news for you- as a *customer* in capitalism, you have a voice and get to speak with your wallet. And it does speak loudly. If you don't like the crap that Disney is putting out, then don't spend any money on it. Otherwise, Disney is giving people what they are willing to pay for. "Central planning" won't be any more effective with the arts than it would with most any other industry.
Without capitalism and a free market, Star Wars wouldn't have existed in the first place.
Most working people can't earn ANY wages & benefits without corporations to employ them. It takes two to tango- if either is too powerful, it doesn't run well.
>"Doesn't seem like a "rubber-stamp" to me."
It looks like someone corrected the summary, since "rubber stamped" is not current there...
^^^ +1
You can drop a phone JUST RIGHT only a few feet from soft ground and have it shatter, or the same phone from 5 feet on concrete and it survive fine. A sample size of 1 tells you almost nothing. I would venture it would take at least 10 drops, each test being a NEW phone, before you could get even a slight chance of knowing anything useful. And even then, it would only tell you about that height and that material it was dropped onto. Of course, that would be VERY expensive testing!
Even discounting the sample sizes of just ONE phone, dropped REPEATEDLY, who actually carries a phone without at least SOME type of case? Nobody I know...
+1 ^ This
I still have 7 movies in my queue for years now that say "unknown" for availability. And some of them are quite mainstream and even in a series. One example is "The Matrix Revolutions" Bluray. They have all the OTHER Matrixes, but not that one. Have been waiting at least a year on that one now. Another is "Gladiator" Bluray- at least a year on that one too.
>"And it's "right to work" states you are upset with... You know the ones with the low unemployment numbers to go along with those low percentages of union jobs? Employers LOVE "right to work" states... "
Yet "right to work" states have it right. It means that unions cannot REQUIRE/FORCE ALL employees to join their union. Employers and most employees like right to work states, because they both have freedom. Workers still have a right to form a union if they want, or even more than one union; and they have a right to not join a union.
It is exactly the NO "right to work" states that saw unions take over everything and raise the costs so high as to put tons of corporations out of business because they could no longer compete. Wages and benefits went *ridiculously* high for even the most menial and unskilled jobs. Just as bad- the red tape to fire or demote bad and under-performing workers was so insane that employers were also stuck with an overall poor workforce that also could not adapt.