Yeah, some nobody with a notebook vs an army of Google lawyers, who do you think will win?
The most important thing I guess is never to put your business plan or serious ideas on any computer. Always keep it in the notebook, especially now when someone can just Google it up.
If they can get every file on your desktop, and you are working on a new project you want to patent, how exactly do you prevent Google or someone working for Google from deciding they want to patent it first?
I mean really, anyone who believes in killing irresponsible people, believes in suicide. AIDS may not kill us, instead we will die of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mad cow, or some new invention. Look, there will always be a way to kill anyone. Anything you do can be deemed irresponsible by any group of insane doctors who want to just let for example, the bird flu kill all the irresponsible people who arent germphobes or who don't wash their hands.
But hey, since I'm not in a position to cure or stop these diseases, all I can say is, if we want to die so badly that we will let viruses, AIDs, and bacteria kill us off willingly, then perhaps we will get our wish someday when a virus actually does wipe us out, or an astroid, or just something unpredictable. You can only survive as a species if you focus on it. Plagues wipe out all species, if animal species can be wiped out into extiction, humans are no different. What are we supposed to do? Go into space?
I support allowing private corporations, like Google to fund research and make generic drugs. I think it's better for the markets if the private sector handles it, also humanitarian work is not something governments are good at. Governments are not designed for this job, private corporations are.
If Google offers fiber I'll switch. I've been waiting for fiber for a long LONG time now, I want at least 100mb, but I think we could do better than this, we should be able to do 500mb connection by now, just because we are Americans and to prove we can. Google, please bring us internet 2.0, we have been waiting.
The group who will hurt most from this is the white male working class. This actually helps minorities because businesses will hire whoever will work cheapest. If we lower the wages and salaries, it benefits people who will accept lower salaries, which just happen to be minorities and women. So I guess this is a new type of affirmative action.
If you want to win, you hire the most talented workers, period. Google would not be on top if it only hired old white males. They hire the best.
Affirmative Action is one thing, Diversity on the other hand is just good for business. I don't think anyone can deny that it is better for business to hire the best, if you were in the record industry, you'd hire Sean Combs, his race wouldnt matter. If you were running a movie studio, you might want to hire Spike Lee, his movies sell out in the box office. If you want to have cheap programmers you hire a team in India. If you want cheap programmers in America, you hire minorities. Lets face it, minorities will do the same job for less money. Females will do the same job as men for less money. I think removing affirmative action and quotas in the long term could actually hurt white males more than anyone else.
The average working class white male programmer is going to be out of a job, because the chinese, indian, black, latino, female, all will do the same job for a cheaper price. Talent is not race based, and this is why in the long term, getting rid of affirmative action and quotas actually helps minorities find jobs and prevents white males from finding jobs. Why does this make perfect sense from a political point of view? When white males lose their jobs to the minorities and females, and can't blame quotas and affirmative action, these white males will instead begin to blame minorities and females in the same way illegal immigrants are "stealing" all the jobs. Now, the white male working class will either have to blame their boss for hiring the cheapest labor, or blame the minority for taking the labor and working for cheaper. In the end, the CEO's win, because now they wont have to hire over priced white males anymore and can hire evem more immigrants and minorities to write the next Microsoft Windows, or work on the new Google code. There can only be so many bosses, but there can be plenty of workerslaves.
Lets see, we don't have universal healthcare, why? because only the bottom 50% wants it. We don't have universal college education, we are removing social security and all social programs, lets face it, if you arent in the top 50%, your vote has no worth.
Sure me one issue that the bottom 50% won on besides social security.
The top families, business owners, religious leaders, professors etc. Essentially the top 1% of everything. The ruling class, your boss, the guy who writes your check. The professor who educated you, and the head of your church. If you don't know what I'm talking about then you arent in the top 1% and are most likely in the bottom 50%. If you have gone to college, church, or worked a job then you know who these people are.
This should tell you that its stupid to buy your marijuana from mexico or any other foreign place.
Second, the war on terror is not a hoax, it's real, and its been planned since perhaps before we were alive. My suggestion is to just survive whatever happens, and hopefully we will end up with a much smaller government, although I doubt it because Republicans seem to want big government these days.
If you do vote, you should vote Republican, unless the Democrats actually start to win elections. Lets face it, the Republicans are the only party left to vote for, so either you vote Republican or you don't vote.
Clinton had the same bosses that Bush has, I suppose Clinton had a different way of doing things, but the actions Clinton took weakened the congress and strengthened the powers of the President. The actions Clinton took were preparation for the war on terrorism.
Look at the fact that it was Clinton who refused to agree to sign into the international court system. If we had an international court then there would be global oversight but Clinton said no. Always remember that.
The top 1% runs this country. The top 1% always ran this country. The political parties don't mean a damn thing because the top 1% are in both parties. If you think that the Democrats werent set to do the same thing you are completely wrong. The executive powers were defined by Clinton, not Bush. It was the Democrats who were behind the war on terror, just as much as it was the Republicans, because when it was time to make the laws, the Democrats and Republicans worked together.
Now I admit, the Republicans are currently running the show, and perhaps this is due to Republicans wanting absolute power, but it does not change the fact that the top 1% of people control this country, most are conservative, but all of them are of the ruling class.
All that matters is the fact that the war on terror is going exactly according to how it was planned. The plans are all over the internet.
I don't know if it is wise to make a to-do list and show it to the world, then go down the list, but Iraq was just on top of the list.
The problem with this, since everyone knows the script, it makes countries like Iran and North Korea way more radical than they would have been. When you project your every move to the world, it might have the effect of making you seem unstopable but at the same time it alerts the bad guys of your next move.
People are confused into thinking Google is a traditional business. Google's invention is going to be as important as the invention of capitalism. Google does for information what capitalism did for trade.
Google is capitalism 2.0, and this means completely new industries worth billions or trillions of dollars will be based off Google. Google is so important for the future of capitalism that many people are fans of Google simply because their business depends on Googles success, and the success of capitalism 2.0
Capitalism 2.0 is peer to peer, Capitalism 1.0 was client server. This goes back to the open source debate, by making the software open source, it broke us out of the dot com crash. By moving to capitalism 2.0 it will bring trillions of dollars into the industry, and this site will be a billion dollar business when billions of viewers are going to slashdot, or even hundreds of millions. Slashdot could literally create a new industry around this site, but this can only happen if Google exists to allow people to find this site. This can only happen when the information is organized enough, and access is cheap enough for it to happen.
Because trillions of dollars are at stake, this is not going to be something that is easily solved. How do you convince Slashdotters to go against their cash cow? How do you convince Richard Stallman to go against Linux? How do you convince Microsoft to give up Microsoft Word?
It's impossible to convince these big companies to ever give up their future plans to make trillions of dollars, too much money is at stake. The consumers will be given stock and herded with incentives. In the end, this new internet war, or whatever you can call this situation, will be good for the economy. Everyone benefits from conflicts like this because the Telecoms and Internet companies will be investing billions in the USA to pay lobbyists, to give stock to blogs, or whatever other methods they choose to use to get their way. This creates jobs. When Google or the Telecoms decide to actually create their new internets, this will create millions of jobs.
because we who set up blogs like Slashdot must pay Google, along with everyone else, to advertise ourselves.
Google simply organizes the worlds information so people can get from point A to point B. Google is like a map, they don't control the market they just map it out and make everyone pay for the map, then they give money back through stock and free services which save us money and make access cheaper. Brilliant plan really. You are free to go anywhere you want as long as you use their map, and you are free to do business anywhere in the Google universe as long as you use GoogleWallet, and you use their systems. Google is inventing Capitalism 2.0
Think with your brain for a moment. How many sites like Slashdot with millions of viewers own Google stock? Hundreds of them.
Slashdot is not going to go against Google, most people on Slashdot will not go against Google. Google will make Slashdot into a billion dollar company if Google gets it's way, and hell, I don't blame any blog site or website for siding with Google when Google pays people and makes people fortunes in advertising revenue, stock, and who knows what else goes on behind the scenes.
If you are dying, how much money you earn makes no difference. All that matters is how long you live, and the quality of that life.
There is no such thing as poverty and wealth, just quality and quantity of life. Nothing else matters. Once you figure this out, then you know that the best way to help people isnt to donate to charity. Charity is a waste of time, because it only exists to counter-act other forces. Charity is reactionary and it isnt even self sustaining.
If you want to increase quality of life, then create the technologies to simplify survival so that people can focus on playing Nintendo. Increase productivity at work, increase the rate of education, and make the world faster so people can do more in less time. It's simple, use technology to speed time up so life moves faster, or use technology to slow time down so life lasts longer, but don't give money to pointless charities unless its to educate the people who want to make life better. If Bill Gates actually cared, he'd use his money to start a venture capital business, go to Africa, find some young version of himself, and literally start a Bill Gates institute. The fact that he's not doing this means he is doing the charity for the publicity.
As much as I like the idea of curing HIV, lets be realistic, no matter how much money he pours into curing diseases ultimately it will be a waste of money because new diseases will appear, more weapons will also arrive into the hands of dictators, and in the end the result is wasted money.
Bill Gates instead should be helping others start businesses, hell he could create new industries around his software for all I care, the point is, just having a big huge group of programmers changes nothing because programmers don't run businesses and don't really change a country. If Bill Gates on the other hand invested in Africa, or talked to his techie friends, then yes with free trade you can improve the situation in Africa, or at least in the countries that are ready for it.
You look at Asia, and currently there is free trade, but if you want Asia to be self sustainable, then Asia must have its own businesses. These businesses could be close friends of Bill Gates, or friends of Microsoft, who cares? The point is there will be people in Asia with jobs because of this.
Where does Africa come in? Africa is just sitting there, we want the middle east to be safer? Well it only makes sense to actually go country to country and through trade you gain influence. If Microsoft has contracts with dozens of businesses, then Microsoft has leverage, and this in itself is security. What we do not want to do is just throw money into the hands of warlords through charity. What we do not need to do is keep giving food which they don't need because they have more farmers than we do. What we do not need to do is treat the developing world like homeless people.
If you just give charity, how exactly do you expect them to find their niche? It's all about finding your niche and profiting, and Bill Gates knows more about how to profit than anyone. I'm waiting for this group of guys to decide to invest in the developing world. I'm tired of seeing Bono and others complain about the debt, and debt relief, sure debt relief would help, but debt relief won't get African countries into the WTO. Debt relief won't make American corporations agree to contracts.
"...name someone that gives more money to the poor than he."
First, can we really say that anyone who is alive and surviving is poor? Poverty does not really exist. Poor is simply someone who has less than you do.
Everyone gives to someone who has less, that is the function of an employer! If I run a business, of course I will hire people who have less to run my business. Bill Gates just does what every other CEO in the world is doing, he just wants to do it in a way which looks like charity. I admit, Bill Gates is hiring more Indian labor than any other company in the world, he is doing a great job to help people in China and India. My personal opinion however, he's helping people in other countries before giving jobs to American workers? Where is the honor in this? As the richest man in the world, profits arent the issue, he could hire anyone he wants yet he chooses to outsource.
If people with ethics leave Google, the result will be an even less ethical Google. Chinese will begin buying Google stock, and eventually Google will move to China.
Think with your head for a moment, its not in anyones best interest to sell Google stock. Anyone in their right mind should buy and keep Google stock for as long as possible, and this goes for anyone in the tech industry, Chinese or American.
If you want to sell your Google stock, all you'll do is make the stock price cheaper for the Chinese. In my opinion, as long as Google is profitable, and it's hiring mostly American workers, it's ethical enough to invest in. When they start outsourcing and are actually doing something major, thats when you sell your stock. I guess it depends on what you view as major, but I view outsourcing as a bigger problem than censorship. Censorship is everywhere, and while its nice to want a censor free world, Google is not powerful enough to take on the Chinese government on censorship, or any government, but certainly not the Chinese government.
You have no proof backing up the point that it is not self aware. Bacteria does not have a nervous system, but its self aware. Many lifeforms do not have a nervous system and they are self aware. While the nature of this specific lifeform is debateable, its a fact that they are alive in the same way fungus and trees are alive. All life should be respected, this means if it is not absolutely neccessary, then we should do no harm.
I don't see why cloning is neccessary, especially human cloning. Designer babies I can agree with, stem cell research I can agree with, cloning I'm against. There is no logical explaination for cloning. Why do we want to populate the earth with clones? That's insane.
We have the opition to change our nature, the problem is we don't want to.
War is the result of lack of a non-human enemy. The warrior class of humans, needs an enemy, even if for the sake of competition.
War can be reduced just as murder and crime has been reduced. There is less murder and crime now than 100 years ago, that's for sure, even if theres just as many criminals. Rape is not as popular as it was before rape was illegal. Remember when children could be beaten up legally? Not anymore.
I'm not saying tribes did not have small scale wars. Most tribal wars however were nothing like the sorts of world wars that industrial society has had.
Tribal wars usually lasted days, maybe months, and were faught between families who were trained and agreed to fight. Usually the strongest won, and the tribes would then come to an agreement.
Tribal wars were avoided through the use of marijuana, tabacco, rituals, religion, and other methods which made up the government. Overall, if you look at how America, Africa, and many tribal countries were before Europe became the global power, it seems that things were going fine. If you go back even beyond that point back to Rome, Rome had many of the same problems and collapsed. If you go to Egypt, Egypt eventually collapsed. Growth can be good, but when government grows too big, and when people are undereducated, this reduces security in itself.
If you look at North Korea, very strong centralized government, extreme discipline, extreme laws, extreme control over the population. We have to at some point decide to set the tone, and make up some basic rules on human rights. If America is to be the world leader, it has to also be the moral leader. Right now I don't think we look very good to the global community, and this weakens America.
War always existed, but the scale and types of wars are moving in a bad direction. A non-violent war should be favorable over a violent war. Diplomacy should be used more often, and if there are to be actual wars, the scale has to be controlled. A nuclear war, or using some of the biological weapons, could literally wipe humanity out, and once nano-technology arrives, if we move onto nano-viruses and weapons, its safe to say that humanity will use these weapons on itself and be wiped out.
At one point, PC's did not have viruses, but eventually someone wrote a virus, and this started the virus wars. Now you have to worry about getting a virus from every file you open, you have to worry about worms, and things only become more sophisticated as the technology advances. Is this what we want for nano-technology? It does not take a rocket scientist to see where we are headed if we keep going.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, some nobody with a notebook vs an army of Google lawyers, who do you think will win?
The most important thing I guess is never to put your business plan or serious ideas on any computer. Always keep it in the notebook, especially now when someone can just Google it up.
If they can get every file on your desktop, and you are working on a new project you want to patent, how exactly do you prevent Google or someone working for Google from deciding they want to patent it first?
I mean really, anyone who believes in killing irresponsible people, believes in suicide. AIDS may not kill us, instead we will die of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mad cow, or some new invention. Look, there will always be a way to kill anyone. Anything you do can be deemed irresponsible by any group of insane doctors who want to just let for example, the bird flu kill all the irresponsible people who arent germphobes or who don't wash their hands.
But hey, since I'm not in a position to cure or stop these diseases, all I can say is, if we want to die so badly that we will let viruses, AIDs, and bacteria kill us off willingly, then perhaps we will get our wish someday when a virus actually does wipe us out, or an astroid, or just something unpredictable. You can only survive as a species if you focus on it. Plagues wipe out all species, if animal species can be wiped out into extiction, humans are no different. What are we supposed to do? Go into space?
I support allowing private corporations, like Google to fund research and make generic drugs. I think it's better for the markets if the private sector handles it, also humanitarian work is not something governments are good at. Governments are not designed for this job, private corporations are.
If Google offers fiber I'll switch. I've been waiting for fiber for a long LONG time now, I want at least 100mb, but I think we could do better than this, we should be able to do 500mb connection by now, just because we are Americans and to prove we can. Google, please bring us internet 2.0, we have been waiting.
The group who will hurt most from this is the white male working class. This actually helps minorities because businesses will hire whoever will work cheapest. If we lower the wages and salaries, it benefits people who will accept lower salaries, which just happen to be minorities and women. So I guess this is a new type of affirmative action.
If you want to win, you hire the most talented workers, period. Google would not be on top if it only hired old white males. They hire the best.
Affirmative Action is one thing, Diversity on the other hand is just good for business. I don't think anyone can deny that it is better for business to hire the best, if you were in the record industry, you'd hire Sean Combs, his race wouldnt matter. If you were running a movie studio, you might want to hire Spike Lee, his movies sell out in the box office. If you want to have cheap programmers you hire a team in India. If you want cheap programmers in America, you hire minorities. Lets face it, minorities will do the same job for less money. Females will do the same job as men for less money. I think removing affirmative action and quotas in the long term could actually hurt white males more than anyone else.
The average working class white male programmer is going to be out of a job, because the chinese, indian, black, latino, female, all will do the same job for a cheaper price. Talent is not race based, and this is why in the long term, getting rid of affirmative action and quotas actually helps minorities find jobs and prevents white males from finding jobs. Why does this make perfect sense from a political point of view? When white males lose their jobs to the minorities and females, and can't blame quotas and affirmative action, these white males will instead begin to blame minorities and females in the same way illegal immigrants are "stealing" all the jobs. Now, the white male working class will either have to blame their boss for hiring the cheapest labor, or blame the minority for taking the labor and working for cheaper. In the end, the CEO's win, because now they wont have to hire over priced white males anymore and can hire evem more immigrants and minorities to write the next Microsoft Windows, or work on the new Google code. There can only be so many bosses, but there can be plenty of workerslaves.
Lets see, we don't have universal healthcare, why? because only the bottom 50% wants it. We don't have universal college education, we are removing social security and all social programs, lets face it, if you arent in the top 50%, your vote has no worth.
Sure me one issue that the bottom 50% won on besides social security.
The top families, business owners, religious leaders, professors etc. Essentially the top 1% of everything. The ruling class, your boss, the guy who writes your check. The professor who educated you, and the head of your church. If you don't know what I'm talking about then you arent in the top 1% and are most likely in the bottom 50%. If you have gone to college, church, or worked a job then you know who these people are.
Either you are a Christian fundamentalist or a Islamic fundamentalist, but you will have people telling you how to live either way. Get used to it.
This should tell you that its stupid to buy your marijuana from mexico or any other foreign place.
Second, the war on terror is not a hoax, it's real, and its been planned since perhaps before we were alive. My suggestion is to just survive whatever happens, and hopefully we will end up with a much smaller government, although I doubt it because Republicans seem to want big government these days.
If you do vote, you should vote Republican, unless the Democrats actually start to win elections. Lets face it, the Republicans are the only party left to vote for, so either you vote Republican or you don't vote.
Clinton had the same bosses that Bush has, I suppose Clinton had a different way of doing things, but the actions Clinton took weakened the congress and strengthened the powers of the President. The actions Clinton took were preparation for the war on terrorism.
Look at the fact that it was Clinton who refused to agree to sign into the international court system. If we had an international court then there would be global oversight but Clinton said no. Always remember that.
The top 1% runs this country. The top 1% always ran this country. The political parties don't mean a damn thing because the top 1% are in both parties. If you think that the Democrats werent set to do the same thing you are completely wrong. The executive powers were defined by Clinton, not Bush. It was the Democrats who were behind the war on terror, just as much as it was the Republicans, because when it was time to make the laws, the Democrats and Republicans worked together.
Now I admit, the Republicans are currently running the show, and perhaps this is due to Republicans wanting absolute power, but it does not change the fact that the top 1% of people control this country, most are conservative, but all of them are of the ruling class.
The case for war?
All that matters is the fact that the war on terror is going exactly according to how it was planned. The plans are all over the internet.
I don't know if it is wise to make a to-do list and show it to the world, then go down the list, but Iraq was just on top of the list.
The problem with this, since everyone knows the script, it makes countries like Iran and North Korea way more radical than they would have been. When you project your every move to the world, it might have the effect of making you seem unstopable but at the same time it alerts the bad guys of your next move.
People are confused into thinking Google is a traditional business. Google's invention is going to be as important as the invention of capitalism. Google does for information what capitalism did for trade.
Google is capitalism 2.0, and this means completely new industries worth billions or trillions of dollars will be based off Google. Google is so important for the future of capitalism that many people are fans of Google simply because their business depends on Googles success, and the success of capitalism 2.0
Capitalism 2.0 is peer to peer, Capitalism 1.0 was client server.
This goes back to the open source debate, by making the software open source, it broke us out of the dot com crash. By moving to capitalism 2.0 it will bring trillions of dollars into the industry, and this site will be a billion dollar business when billions of viewers are going to slashdot, or even hundreds of millions. Slashdot could literally create a new industry around this site, but this can only happen if Google exists to allow people to find this site. This can only happen when the information is organized enough, and access is cheap enough for it to happen.
Because trillions of dollars are at stake, this is not going to be something that is easily solved. How do you convince Slashdotters to go against their cash cow? How do you convince Richard Stallman to go against Linux? How do you convince Microsoft to give up Microsoft Word?
It's impossible to convince these big companies to ever give up their future plans to make trillions of dollars, too much money is at stake. The consumers will be given stock and herded with incentives. In the end, this new internet war, or whatever you can call this situation, will be good for the economy. Everyone benefits from conflicts like this because the Telecoms and Internet companies will be investing billions in the USA to pay lobbyists, to give stock to blogs, or whatever other methods they choose to use to get their way. This creates jobs. When Google or the Telecoms decide to actually create their new internets, this will create millions of jobs.
because we who set up blogs like Slashdot must pay Google, along with everyone else, to advertise ourselves.
Google simply organizes the worlds information so people can get from point A to point B. Google is like a map, they don't control the market they just map it out and make everyone pay for the map, then they give money back through stock and free services which save us money and make access cheaper. Brilliant plan really. You are free to go anywhere you want as long as you use their map, and you are free to do business anywhere in the Google universe as long as you use GoogleWallet, and you use their systems. Google is inventing Capitalism 2.0
Look, if the religion is profitable, people will support it.
People support profits. If by worshipping Google, money will rain down from the sky, well then we all will worship Google.
Think with your brain for a moment. How many sites like Slashdot with millions of viewers own Google stock? Hundreds of them.
Slashdot is not going to go against Google, most people on Slashdot will not go against Google. Google will make Slashdot into a billion dollar company if Google gets it's way, and hell, I don't blame any blog site or website for siding with Google when Google pays people and makes people fortunes in advertising revenue, stock, and who knows what else goes on behind the scenes.
If you are dying, how much money you earn makes no difference. All that matters is how long you live, and the quality of that life.
There is no such thing as poverty and wealth, just quality and quantity of life. Nothing else matters. Once you figure this out, then you know that the best way to help people isnt to donate to charity. Charity is a waste of time, because it only exists to counter-act other forces. Charity is reactionary and it isnt even self sustaining.
If you want to increase quality of life, then create the technologies to simplify survival so that people can focus on playing Nintendo. Increase productivity at work, increase the rate of education, and make the world faster so people can do more in less time. It's simple, use technology to speed time up so life moves faster, or use technology to slow time down so life lasts longer, but don't give money to pointless charities unless its to educate the people who want to make life better. If Bill Gates actually cared, he'd use his money to start a venture capital business, go to Africa, find some young version of himself, and literally start a Bill Gates institute. The fact that he's not doing this means he is doing the charity for the publicity.
As much as I like the idea of curing HIV, lets be realistic, no matter how much money he pours into curing diseases ultimately it will be a waste of money because new diseases will appear, more weapons will also arrive into the hands of dictators, and in the end the result is wasted money.
Bill Gates instead should be helping others start businesses, hell he could create new industries around his software for all I care, the point is, just having a big huge group of programmers changes nothing because programmers don't run businesses and don't really change a country. If Bill Gates on the other hand invested in Africa, or talked to his techie friends, then yes with free trade you can improve the situation in Africa, or at least in the countries that are ready for it.
You look at Asia, and currently there is free trade, but if you want Asia to be self sustainable, then Asia must have its own businesses. These businesses could be close friends of Bill Gates, or friends of Microsoft, who cares? The point is there will be people in Asia with jobs because of this.
Where does Africa come in? Africa is just sitting there, we want the middle east to be safer? Well it only makes sense to actually go country to country and through trade you gain influence. If Microsoft has contracts with dozens of businesses, then Microsoft has leverage, and this in itself is security. What we do not want to do is just throw money into the hands of warlords through charity. What we do not need to do is keep giving food which they don't need because they have more farmers than we do. What we do not need to do is treat the developing world like homeless people.
If you just give charity, how exactly do you expect them to find their niche? It's all about finding your niche and profiting, and Bill Gates knows more about how to profit than anyone. I'm waiting for this group of guys to decide to invest in the developing world. I'm tired of seeing Bono and others complain about the debt, and debt relief, sure debt relief would help, but debt relief won't get African countries into the WTO. Debt relief won't make American corporations agree to contracts.
"...name someone that gives more money to the poor than he."
First, can we really say that anyone who is alive and surviving is poor? Poverty does not really exist. Poor is simply someone who has less than you do.
Everyone gives to someone who has less, that is the function of an employer! If I run a business, of course I will hire people who have less to run my business. Bill Gates just does what every other CEO in the world is doing, he just wants to do it in a way which looks like charity. I admit, Bill Gates is hiring more Indian labor than any other company in the world, he is doing a great job to help people in China and India. My personal opinion however, he's helping people in other countries before giving jobs to American workers? Where is the honor in this? As the richest man in the world, profits arent the issue, he could hire anyone he wants yet he chooses to outsource.
If people with ethics leave Google, the result will be an even less ethical Google. Chinese will begin buying Google stock, and eventually Google will move to China.
Think with your head for a moment, its not in anyones best interest to sell Google stock. Anyone in their right mind should buy and keep Google stock for as long as possible, and this goes for anyone in the tech industry, Chinese or American.
If you want to sell your Google stock, all you'll do is make the stock price cheaper for the Chinese. In my opinion, as long as Google is profitable, and it's hiring mostly American workers, it's ethical enough to invest in. When they start outsourcing and are actually doing something major, thats when you sell your stock. I guess it depends on what you view as major, but I view outsourcing as a bigger problem than censorship. Censorship is everywhere, and while its nice to want a censor free world, Google is not powerful enough to take on the Chinese government on censorship, or any government, but certainly not the Chinese government.
You have no proof backing up the point that it is not self aware. Bacteria does not have a nervous system, but its self aware. Many lifeforms do not have a nervous system and they are self aware. While the nature of this specific lifeform is debateable, its a fact that they are alive in the same way fungus and trees are alive. All life should be respected, this means if it is not absolutely neccessary, then we should do no harm.
I don't see why cloning is neccessary, especially human cloning. Designer babies I can agree with, stem cell research I can agree with, cloning I'm against. There is no logical explaination for cloning. Why do we want to populate the earth with clones? That's insane.
We have the opition to change our nature, the problem is we don't want to.
War is the result of lack of a non-human enemy. The warrior class of humans, needs an enemy, even if for the sake of competition.
War can be reduced just as murder and crime has been reduced. There is less murder and crime now than 100 years ago, that's for sure, even if theres just as many criminals. Rape is not as popular as it was before rape was illegal. Remember when children could be beaten up legally? Not anymore.
I'm not saying tribes did not have small scale wars. Most tribal wars however were nothing like the sorts of world wars that industrial society has had.
Tribal wars usually lasted days, maybe months, and were faught between families who were trained and agreed to fight. Usually the strongest won, and the tribes would then come to an agreement.
Tribal wars were avoided through the use of marijuana, tabacco, rituals, religion, and other methods which made up the government. Overall, if you look at how America, Africa, and many tribal countries were before Europe became the global power, it seems that things were going fine. If you go back even beyond that point back to Rome, Rome had many of the same problems and collapsed. If you go to Egypt, Egypt eventually collapsed. Growth can be good, but when government grows too big, and when people are undereducated, this reduces security in itself.
If you look at North Korea, very strong centralized government, extreme discipline, extreme laws, extreme control over the population. We have to at some point decide to set the tone, and make up some basic rules on human rights. If America is to be the world leader, it has to also be the moral leader. Right now I don't think we look very good to the global community, and this weakens America.
War always existed, but the scale and types of wars are moving in a bad direction. A non-violent war should be favorable over a violent war. Diplomacy should be used more often, and if there are to be actual wars, the scale has to be controlled. A nuclear war, or using some of the biological weapons, could literally wipe humanity out, and once nano-technology arrives, if we move onto nano-viruses and weapons, its safe to say that humanity will use these weapons on itself and be wiped out.
At one point, PC's did not have viruses, but eventually someone wrote a virus, and this started the virus wars. Now you have to worry about getting a virus from every file you open, you have to worry about worms, and things only become more sophisticated as the technology advances. Is this what we want for nano-technology? It does not take a rocket scientist to see where we are headed if we keep going.