"Spying" would be requesting information more than once on the same individual. Although I am sure that there are several cases here that could be classified as "spying", these numbers do not directly support your assertion. It is probably closer to 100 individuals than 10,000 individuals.
Most of these responses probably helped eliminate a suspect from an investigation. Some responses helped incriminate the individual.
Google is quite transparent and forthright about these requests and responses. Do they inform the person for which information was requested?
Mod parent up! A farmer can't help it if his field is being polluted by Monsanto's seed...even if it might be financially beneficial. If a coal mine created a pile of coal and the pile started spilling over into my property, then there are 3 options:
1. The coal mining company sues me for having their coal on my property (at no fault of my own) 2. I sue the coal mining company for putting their coal on my property 3. We call it a truce, and I just keep and sell the coal on my property
Very few US businesses preach free market capitalism. They preach managed market capitalism. They achieve that goal through the practice of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism increases in effectiveness with the size of government (and its power). And free market capitalism gets the bad rap as government power and size increases. Go figure.
Did those crop failures happen because of global warming? I would bet most of those failures were due to the Little Ice Age instead of the Medieval Warm Period.
Actually, if you are robbing 4 banks a year, then you have 3 month prep time for each job. If you spend even part of that time for prep work, then you are WAY above average for a bank robber. In fact, the stats around a significant number of robberies are probably around people that did VERY little preperation. On top of that, there are probably people who did back-to-back robberies like idiots.
That "economists" need to be better statisticians. How much does it pay to rob a bank that you do at least a month's prep work for?
The founder's thoughts were simple. It was about preventing the government from disarming the people. Self defense from government; not other people. It can probably be traced back to numerous instances, but the most famous was Lexington/Concord when the Red Coats were specifically trying to disarm the Patriots. They saw that the only reason a government would want to do that is to reduce the capability to "fight back" when doing things the people don't like.
Because our military can root out and kill/capture around 50 million people scattered quite uniformly across the 3rd/4th largest country (in area) in the world. They have trouble in far smaller countries with far fewer and less advanced weapons.
There have already been 20k+ jobs gained by competitors at the expense of Nokia. So while 20k families have been helped. I say less than 10k, because there has to be husband/wife or parent/child employed there somewhere.
I followed and agreed with your first two paragraphs. Even the first couple sentences of the 3rd paragraph. Then you went crazy.
Inhospitable? You know the earth has been much warmer with humans living on it? Earth had a radically different climate 200 years ago, and 200 years before that, and 200 years before that. Define "radical" please.
Then you finish with "we are directly responsible". That is the part being questioned. Not that the earth is warming, but the cause. You conveniently failed to bring that part up in your first two paragraphs. You even say "it's still up for discussion why it's happening". Did you come to the conclusion while writing the paragraphs in between?
Then you finish by saying earth will not be inhospitable. What is your opinion here???
So the African American community didn't increase their voting population by more than 1%? No AA Republicans switched? And no non-AA voted with "positive" racism? I personally know each of these were a factor.
That social contract goes against basic human freedoms. So it should be illegal for someone to use a video camera in public? Just because someone chooses to do it on a larger scale and actually use the information is still just practicing a basic right.
Someone who does this can be considered an a$$. But trying to regulate it has nearly infinite costs and millions of use cases to independently judge.
That's why I think it is crazy when people say the only thing at Google that is making money is AdWords/Search. They think everything else is a drain. Those other things are just portals to not only more advertising, but more directed advertising.
That's ok. You should have no expectation of privacy with Google. If you were riding a bus, would you expect everyone to cover their ears? You should be careful about what you do or type if you are concerned about keeping that information private (which is your right). However, when you willfully divulge that once-private information, it ain't private anymore.
I don't think this is just about a network connection. This goes into the costs of administration of outsourcing traditionally internal components. Now you need to rely on that external entity for service...whether that be a vendor dealing with the hardware or a vendor that supplies the service itself.
He didn't own it. Apple owned it. He didn't own Apple. He owned a fraction of Apple. Apple created the handicap spots...maybe at the discretion of Jobs, but doubtful.
The problem that they are proposing is that an un-free market (special tax incentives to special industries) has caused deviation from the market equilibrium. So housing is more expensive than it otherwise would be. In fact, some of those tax incentives just got reallocated into real estate prices.
So, just like any deviation from a "free" market or market equilibrium, it has far reaching effects. And it has costs usually not factored into the original decision.
So logically (sarcasm alert) the critics probably want to create another incentive (rent controls?) to deviate even more from market equilibrium. That will have far reach consequences and they will create more laws and policies to deviate even further. This is the current "progressive" mindset. Bring progress through laws instead of the elimination of the problem law in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
With Chinese sourced money!
It should have been called a boomerang or a hockey stick.
"Spying" would be requesting information more than once on the same individual. Although I am sure that there are several cases here that could be classified as "spying", these numbers do not directly support your assertion. It is probably closer to 100 individuals than 10,000 individuals.
Most of these responses probably helped eliminate a suspect from an investigation. Some responses helped incriminate the individual.
Google is quite transparent and forthright about these requests and responses. Do they inform the person for which information was requested?
Mod parent up! A farmer can't help it if his field is being polluted by Monsanto's seed...even if it might be financially beneficial. If a coal mine created a pile of coal and the pile started spilling over into my property, then there are 3 options:
1. The coal mining company sues me for having their coal on my property (at no fault of my own)
2. I sue the coal mining company for putting their coal on my property
3. We call it a truce, and I just keep and sell the coal on my property
I was thinking...I can encrypt a hard drive, but smashing it and then throwing all of it hot liquid magma.
Very few US businesses preach free market capitalism. They preach managed market capitalism. They achieve that goal through the practice of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism increases in effectiveness with the size of government (and its power). And free market capitalism gets the bad rap as government power and size increases. Go figure.
So you're saying there's a chance?
Did those crop failures happen because of global warming? I would bet most of those failures were due to the Little Ice Age instead of the Medieval Warm Period.
Now diseases...that's another story.
Actually, if you are robbing 4 banks a year, then you have 3 month prep time for each job. If you spend even part of that time for prep work, then you are WAY above average for a bank robber. In fact, the stats around a significant number of robberies are probably around people that did VERY little preperation. On top of that, there are probably people who did back-to-back robberies like idiots.
That "economists" need to be better statisticians. How much does it pay to rob a bank that you do at least a month's prep work for?
Give them a political office, and they can accept money from the bank ...so the bank can legally rob a country
The founder's thoughts were simple. It was about preventing the government from disarming the people. Self defense from government; not other people. It can probably be traced back to numerous instances, but the most famous was Lexington/Concord when the Red Coats were specifically trying to disarm the Patriots. They saw that the only reason a government would want to do that is to reduce the capability to "fight back" when doing things the people don't like.
Because our military can root out and kill/capture around 50 million people scattered quite uniformly across the 3rd/4th largest country (in area) in the world. They have trouble in far smaller countries with far fewer and less advanced weapons.
There have already been 20k+ jobs gained by competitors at the expense of Nokia. So while 20k families have been helped. I say less than 10k, because there has to be husband/wife or parent/child employed there somewhere.
Net gain for society (but likely not Finland).
I followed and agreed with your first two paragraphs. Even the first couple sentences of the 3rd paragraph. Then you went crazy.
Inhospitable? You know the earth has been much warmer with humans living on it? Earth had a radically different climate 200 years ago, and 200 years before that, and 200 years before that. Define "radical" please.
Then you finish with "we are directly responsible". That is the part being questioned. Not that the earth is warming, but the cause. You conveniently failed to bring that part up in your first two paragraphs. You even say "it's still up for discussion why it's happening". Did you come to the conclusion while writing the paragraphs in between?
Then you finish by saying earth will not be inhospitable. What is your opinion here???
What about the real amendments of the real Bill of Rights? Our current #1 was actually #3. One of the first 2 took 200 years to pass.
How did you get through so many Anonymous Cowards...so quickly?!
Go in person to MicroCenter.
So the African American community didn't increase their voting population by more than 1%? No AA Republicans switched? And no non-AA voted with "positive" racism? I personally know each of these were a factor.
That social contract goes against basic human freedoms. So it should be illegal for someone to use a video camera in public? Just because someone chooses to do it on a larger scale and actually use the information is still just practicing a basic right.
Someone who does this can be considered an a$$. But trying to regulate it has nearly infinite costs and millions of use cases to independently judge.
And how many people voted for Obama because he is black?
That's why I think it is crazy when people say the only thing at Google that is making money is AdWords/Search. They think everything else is a drain. Those other things are just portals to not only more advertising, but more directed advertising.
That's ok. You should have no expectation of privacy with Google. If you were riding a bus, would you expect everyone to cover their ears? You should be careful about what you do or type if you are concerned about keeping that information private (which is your right). However, when you willfully divulge that once-private information, it ain't private anymore.
I don't think this is just about a network connection. This goes into the costs of administration of outsourcing traditionally internal components. Now you need to rely on that external entity for service...whether that be a vendor dealing with the hardware or a vendor that supplies the service itself.
He didn't own it. Apple owned it. He didn't own Apple. He owned a fraction of Apple. Apple created the handicap spots...maybe at the discretion of Jobs, but doubtful.
The problem that they are proposing is that an un-free market (special tax incentives to special industries) has caused deviation from the market equilibrium. So housing is more expensive than it otherwise would be. In fact, some of those tax incentives just got reallocated into real estate prices.
So, just like any deviation from a "free" market or market equilibrium, it has far reaching effects. And it has costs usually not factored into the original decision.
So logically (sarcasm alert) the critics probably want to create another incentive (rent controls?) to deviate even more from market equilibrium. That will have far reach consequences and they will create more laws and policies to deviate even further. This is the current "progressive" mindset. Bring progress through laws instead of the elimination of the problem law in the first place.