I don't know specifically about Google, but have been involved in a couple of companies that were bought up. It doesn't seem to happen immediately, but you're eventually expected to assimilate as policies, vision statements, etc. are all merged. These can take a couple years at large corporations. The level of oppressiveness will also vary depending upon the purchasing companies corporate culture. I worked for a large engineering firm that was bought up, and we completely lost the engineering feel as everything became more about finance rather than building good products...it was rather depressing, but I understand it.
Yes! I had all but shut down my old Yahoo portal because I was content with iGoogle. Their excuse that all of the content was available elsewhere, while true, fails to see the need for a single URL that can bring up all of your frequently used stuff. Now I'm back to using the somewhat sucky Yahoo portal...it was better before they also forced change to the "modern" version.
I honestly don't give a shit if it's a good product. For those of us with gmail accounts, it was virtually forced upon us. Want me to try something new?...ask first. Don't pull the same crap as Apple and U2 did. It may have been their best music ever, but I won't listen to it just on principle. This is an idiotic and rude marketing technique that needs to cease.
So, maybe I misunderstood but, "Eat the rich" implies that you believe they're all evil, or at least the vast majority of them. I'm not sure what your definition of rich is, but FWIW I know or have known several self made multimillionaires (my youngest uncle, my dad's best friend, a couple others, and even my dad who was a small business owner, and would have by definition been a "one per-center"). They aren't the uber-rich, but I've witnessed the envy of many who seemed to think they deserved what these guys earned.
As to equity and relative power, I'm all for removing the lobbyists, and the money influence from politics. We should all have equal representation.
Damnit Drinky, I mark your posts overrated at every opportunity! Don't ruin it for me!
In all honesty, while we do frequently disagree, I prefer the debate of issues vs. the sliminess of moderating someone down with an opposing viewpoint. I even occasionally learn that my position isn't as well thought out as I originally believed.
Agreed, but then don't confuse faith with the word false. I'm not a religious person, but the lack of tolerance I see here is pathetic. People believe, so let them, as long as they're not trying to push their ideas on you, why do you give a fuck? Sure there are fringe religious wackos out there, and I would agree that they should be shunned. But the same could be said about some atheists I know.
If you can't be tolerant, you're part of the problem.
How about if he replaced "be respectful" with "not be disrespectful"? You don't have to respect religion, but you shouldn't show disrespect to those who do believe.
And just FWIW, I'm not a religious person. But I don't need to insult those who wish to believe, or those who don't. There's just no point to doing it other than being offensive.
So, it sound like your okay with the consequences, correct?
Everyone has their own opinion, but for me if someone has to resort to physical violence when they are insulted or offended, then that person is a childish fuckwit. That said, there are exceptions to every rule, and I'm sure if someone insulted my spouse in front of me, I'd probably take a shot at them in the heat of the moment.
So, if I'm in the business of searching for terrorists, do I need to look at all humans, or can I pair down the search? Based on your logic we'd need to include children and the elderly. Or, is it okay to profile them out of the Venn diagram. I know it's politically incorrect to use the word profiling, but it's also illogical to frisk grandma before she boards a plane.
So, you realize that releasing information could give away the techniques used to gather said data. And, in doing so, allow those targeted to take steps to prevent such collection.
Now, if you don't believe these agencies should be collecting info from countries like DPRK, I can't help you. And, I'm not trying to defend anything regarding collection of metadata on non-military/citizens. But, if you acknowledge that intelligence gathering against enemies is an necessity, then you have to accept that some things simply can not be released.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to respond that while it may be "criminal", it's not a crime, but you got to that at the end.
I don't know specifically about Google, but have been involved in a couple of companies that were bought up. It doesn't seem to happen immediately, but you're eventually expected to assimilate as policies, vision statements, etc. are all merged. These can take a couple years at large corporations. The level of oppressiveness will also vary depending upon the purchasing companies corporate culture. I worked for a large engineering firm that was bought up, and we completely lost the engineering feel as everything became more about finance rather than building good products...it was rather depressing, but I understand it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd bet Google required all of their employees to sign up, or just signed them up w/o asking them.
Yes! I had all but shut down my old Yahoo portal because I was content with iGoogle. Their excuse that all of the content was available elsewhere, while true, fails to see the need for a single URL that can bring up all of your frequently used stuff. Now I'm back to using the somewhat sucky Yahoo portal...it was better before they also forced change to the "modern" version.
Well, his toilets flush in the wrong direction too, so that would make sense.
I honestly don't give a shit if it's a good product. For those of us with gmail accounts, it was virtually forced upon us. Want me to try something new?...ask first. Don't pull the same crap as Apple and U2 did. It may have been their best music ever, but I won't listen to it just on principle. This is an idiotic and rude marketing technique that needs to cease.
So, maybe I misunderstood but, "Eat the rich" implies that you believe they're all evil, or at least the vast majority of them. I'm not sure what your definition of rich is, but FWIW I know or have known several self made multimillionaires (my youngest uncle, my dad's best friend, a couple others, and even my dad who was a small business owner, and would have by definition been a "one per-center"). They aren't the uber-rich, but I've witnessed the envy of many who seemed to think they deserved what these guys earned.
As to equity and relative power, I'm all for removing the lobbyists, and the money influence from politics. We should all have equal representation.
Wolves don't post as AC.
Damnit Drinky, I mark your posts overrated at every opportunity! Don't ruin it for me!
In all honesty, while we do frequently disagree, I prefer the debate of issues vs. the sliminess of moderating someone down with an opposing viewpoint. I even occasionally learn that my position isn't as well thought out as I originally believed.
Cheers,
Oh I'm sure it would only be one sided, not.
Agreed, but then don't confuse faith with the word false. I'm not a religious person, but the lack of tolerance I see here is pathetic. People believe, so let them, as long as they're not trying to push their ideas on you, why do you give a fuck? Sure there are fringe religious wackos out there, and I would agree that they should be shunned. But the same could be said about some atheists I know.
If you can't be tolerant, you're part of the problem.
Eat the rich
While greed is a vice, so is envy. Look in the mirror my friend.
Are the laws you're referring to nation wide? I was under the impression they vary from state to state.
How about if he replaced "be respectful" with "not be disrespectful"? You don't have to respect religion, but you shouldn't show disrespect to those who do believe.
And just FWIW, I'm not a religious person. But I don't need to insult those who wish to believe, or those who don't. There's just no point to doing it other than being offensive.
So, it sound like your okay with the consequences, correct?
Everyone has their own opinion, but for me if someone has to resort to physical violence when they are insulted or offended, then that person is a childish fuckwit. That said, there are exceptions to every rule, and I'm sure if someone insulted my spouse in front of me, I'd probably take a shot at them in the heat of the moment.
So, if I'm in the business of searching for terrorists, do I need to look at all humans, or can I pair down the search? Based on your logic we'd need to include children and the elderly. Or, is it okay to profile them out of the Venn diagram. I know it's politically incorrect to use the word profiling, but it's also illogical to frisk grandma before she boards a plane.
How many allies died after Enigma was broken? Just because every threat isn't countered, doesn't mean they didn't know it was coming.
So, you realize that releasing information could give away the techniques used to gather said data. And, in doing so, allow those targeted to take steps to prevent such collection.
Now, if you don't believe these agencies should be collecting info from countries like DPRK, I can't help you. And, I'm not trying to defend anything regarding collection of metadata on non-military/citizens. But, if you acknowledge that intelligence gathering against enemies is an necessity, then you have to accept that some things simply can not be released.
This is exactly why I dumped Quicken way back when they started requiring users to get online. Loved it as a stand alone app back in the day.
I knew you were full of shit.
So, can you define the difference between God, and a "very advanced race", maybe one that created us?
It might very well be an alien.
The PC term is "undocumented".
Doubtful that your relatives will want all the routers, servers, software, etc. But please don't throw out the prOn!
So, I guess the new Pope needs to shut up about Global Warming.
There's a special place in Hell for people who think they're funny, and when told they're not, whine about others sense of humor.