Ultimately, my preference, if the chemicals are properly documented on the food, is that the choice remain with me... in the sense that I want to decide if trans-fats are too much of a hassle.
I just think it is fine to complain when something is changed to the worse and there are no good alternatives.
What if you and a lot of people really liked bagels, and only one company made these, they might even have a patent on bagels. One day this company decides to use trans-fats in all their bagels. Would you tell the few people that discovered the change and started complaining that they should shut up and accept it or buy toasts instead?
I'm not advocating for government intervention, but I think an active protest is fair when your options are limited.
I don't believe that a few resourceful users passively boycotting these products will do the best for the masses.
It's like going to the supermarket, reading the declaration on some product and finding out that it's filled with chemicals. Should you accept that and either not buy the product, knowing that people not reading the declaration will be fed these chemicals, or should you speak up?
Chances are that if enough people make a fuzz about an annoying feature in a Google product, maybe they will change it in their effort of keeping their white hat on and the geek culture on their side.
I will probably install Google Earth anyway, but I just don't like the attitude that you should passively accept stuff that smells, when there are no good alternatives. That is not healthy competition. Going to the record store to buy the whole album and rip it is a real last century hassle when all I wanted to do was to play this particular song on my car's mp3 player.
This isn't a war... If you don't like Google's policy don't install the software. That's not retreating, that's taking power away from Google (the less people using their software the less power they have.) If everyone "retreats" Google loses (it's hard to maintain a company with no customers), it's as simple as that.
This is a bit like saying that if you don't like DRM, then choose not to listen to music. Google makes some great product with a huge user base. All the common users might be annoyed by resource hungry background application without knowing why, but only the top 1% most tech savvy might be aware of the source of annoyance and choose to boycott Google. That will not put any pressure on Google.
As long as you aren't being forced to install Google's software (and you're not) you still have your rights.
Again, replace "install Google's software" with "download DRM music".
I want to listen to music on all devices I own and I want to use Google's great products without screwing up my system.
I don't think that the government is the way to go, but someone should tell Google that day are doing harm. I'm pretty tired of reinstalling Windows XP every other month because it clutters with this kind of background stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Ultimately, my preference, if the chemicals are properly documented on the food, is that the choice remain with me... in the sense that I want to decide if trans-fats are too much of a hassle.
I just think it is fine to complain when something is changed to the worse and there are no good alternatives. What if you and a lot of people really liked bagels, and only one company made these, they might even have a patent on bagels. One day this company decides to use trans-fats in all their bagels. Would you tell the few people that discovered the change and started complaining that they should shut up and accept it or buy toasts instead? I'm not advocating for government intervention, but I think an active protest is fair when your options are limited.
I don't believe that a few resourceful users passively boycotting these products will do the best for the masses. It's like going to the supermarket, reading the declaration on some product and finding out that it's filled with chemicals. Should you accept that and either not buy the product, knowing that people not reading the declaration will be fed these chemicals, or should you speak up?
Chances are that if enough people make a fuzz about an annoying feature in a Google product, maybe they will change it in their effort of keeping their white hat on and the geek culture on their side.
I will probably install Google Earth anyway, but I just don't like the attitude that you should passively accept stuff that smells, when there are no good alternatives. That is not healthy competition. Going to the record store to buy the whole album and rip it is a real last century hassle when all I wanted to do was to play this particular song on my car's mp3 player.
This isn't a war... If you don't like Google's policy don't install the software. That's not retreating, that's taking power away from Google (the less people using their software the less power they have.) If everyone "retreats" Google loses (it's hard to maintain a company with no customers), it's as simple as that.
This is a bit like saying that if you don't like DRM, then choose not to listen to music. Google makes some great product with a huge user base. All the common users might be annoyed by resource hungry background application without knowing why, but only the top 1% most tech savvy might be aware of the source of annoyance and choose to boycott Google. That will not put any pressure on Google.
As long as you aren't being forced to install Google's software (and you're not) you still have your rights.
Again, replace "install Google's software" with "download DRM music". I want to listen to music on all devices I own and I want to use Google's great products without screwing up my system. I don't think that the government is the way to go, but someone should tell Google that day are doing harm. I'm pretty tired of reinstalling Windows XP every other month because it clutters with this kind of background stuff.