> However what is being sacrificed? The ethics of Google. What is being gained by the sacrifice? Access to China == profit.
>...
> If everyone, every company goes along with these policies then what motivation is there to change them?
The big picture here isn't Google's motivates for profit, which are obvious. It's whether it's more effective to exert change in China by isolationism or by involvement. I for one believe that Google, the US, and the world, are only going to be able to encourage further democratic changes in China by engagement instead of isolating them.
By choosing to isolate China because you don't agree with some of their policies, you end up encouraging them to be more and more oppressive. This is because without economic development, the coutry really won't have the means to be able to allow more freedoms. And instead will be forced to become more and more extreme the other way. ie North Korea.
However, if you choose to become economically invested in a China, like we've been doing for 30 years now, and work to encourage growth in whatever means that you are allowed, you end up with dual benefits. One being that China has become economically dependent on us which leads to us being safer in general, and gives us much more clout to encourage change. And two, democratic changes end up developing naturally, because with more economic prosperity, you end up with a more educated populous that will demands changes.
Democracies can't be built in a day, no matter how much we might wish otherwise. It's going to take a time for China to continue growing and give it's citizens more and more freedoms. But they already recognized a while ago that strict Communism isn't an effective economic model, which is why they've already instituted the democratic and capatistic changes that they have. With time, they will be able to make more. And I believe that is the real trend.
As much as I find the decision to censor unsettling, it's actually an easy decision. And I for one would much prefer that a company like Google, which has a motto of not being evil, to be the one doing the censoring and admitting to it. Because the alternative is a company that wouldn't even bother admitting to it or cared about whether it was truly doing evil or not.
As someone who has gone through Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and has personal experience with psychiatric pharmacology, I can say that this is a bad idea for multiple reasons.
The majority of the harm that PTSD causes isn't because it isn't treatable, it's because it's not even diagnosed. I of course was aware of the condition when I went through my own trauma, but I never considered that it would ever apply to me. Instead, because there is such an inherant shame involved in victomhood, I chose to try to suppress my experience. Suppression did not work. Instead, it took a year and failing out of college before others picked up on that something was wrong.
Now, after a couple years of therapy and some anti-depressants to fight depression that was a side effect of the untreated PTSD, I can say that I have at least some perspective on the condition. And I would not want to have taken a pill to simply lesson the memory. Once I finally recognized that I had a condition, I was able to go through a process to intellectually and emotionally understand the trauma. It took a lot of time, and help from others. But I've been able to use that experience as a point of passion and drive to prevent similiar things from happening to others. And I do not believe that a simple intellectual understanding would be enough to go through the inherant discomfort that comes with talking about trauma.
Here is what I really fear about a pill though. It's that people will use the excuse of a pill to not really treat sufferers of PTSD. Or even worse, that those victoms will believe that just because they have taken some pill, that they do not need real treatment. There's already enough of a stigma for those who have gone through trauma, that they don't need the associated guilt that a pill should be enough. It's imperative that we talk about trauma, and truly appreciate it for what it is. There should be a drive for more talking about this condition, instead of a drive for a simple pill to "fix it".
Trauma is part of being human. The last thing we need to be teaching people is that if you've gone through something bad that you should just take a pill and start from scratch. All memories, good and bad, are important for growth. And tramatic ones are arguably even more important, as it allows you to protect yourself for things happening again. This is why the brain reacts the way it does in making these memories stronger in general.
So in conclusion, I would hope that we would put more effort into finding and diagnosing PTSD, instead looking for a wonder cure. Once people are finally told that they have this condition, they often can make efforts themselves to get better. It takes time, but with help and understanding it's very much possible.
In reply to your offtopic pet-peeve.
When calling someone's cellphone, it's important to know if someone is in a car or doing some other activity that might require more of their attention. It's simply a little more specific than the other relevent question, "Are you busy?". As busyness is definitely relative, and subject to change depending on the circumstances.
I also find it a little annoying when people ask me this question. Or when it's often the first thing people are asked in overheard conversations. But this annoyance is simply because I want whatever conversation that I'm having or others are having to get to the point as quickly as possible so that it can end. The idea of tourists calling their family and stating "Guess what? I'm calling from the plane!" simply for the novelty of it very annoying. But I'll still be asking people where they are when calling them if I forsee the conversation lasting for more than a couple minutes, just so that I know.
This is true, but BETA for Google simply means any product that isn't going to be making them money, at least not directly. If noone's actually going to be paying for it, then why should they take the responsibility that is associated with calling something a full release? The answer is, there is no reason. Noone cares what they call it except for the fickle techies who feel the need to complain about the semantics of how most of their products are still in beta.
For all intensive purposes though, Gmail is a fully released product. It works better and faster than any other email service out there, many of which claim to be "final versions". That comparison alone should tell you what stage Gmail is really in. So as long as they continue providing this wonderful service for free, I'm cool with them claiming it's in whatever stage they want, even ALPHA.
Bin Laden has effected the world much more dramatically than Giuliani ever could. Yes, building is much harder than destroying. But this isn't a test of what they actually accomplished and how hard it was, but instead who they've influenced and how strongly.
Bin Laden spent years training thousands of terrorists how to opporate on their own. And then he spent years performing bigger and bigger acts of terrorism until he finally reached the big one. Demonstrating how 19 committed individuals can accomplish so much with only the use of box cutters and the willingness to sacrifice their own lives.
Yes, we're still in the middle east. Yes, afganistan has had a regime change. Yes, Iraq has been "liberated". And in theory Bin Laden is hiding in some cave somewhere. But we're left with millions of people with the knowledge that they could perform major acts of terrorism if they simply have the will to do so.
Now, here's hoping that most of them find our goals and means altruistic in the end. But I can predict without much forethought that we're going to be hearing the name Bin Laden decades to come, long past any influence the Giuliani has been able to make.
As for Bill Gates, I certainly believe that he deserves this award. Microsoft being evil and personal wealth arguments aside, Gates has invested a lot of not only money but time into the cause of World Health, specifically in Africa. This is an area of the world that is still being ignored too often. So we can hope that Bono and the Gates' continue to advocate for this cause, and that in the years to come they can be known for influencing the rest of the world into helping to encourage progress in Africa.
Slashdot Mirror
>
> If everyone, every company goes along with these policies then what motivation is there to change them?
The big picture here isn't Google's motivates for profit, which are obvious. It's whether it's more effective to exert change in China by isolationism or by involvement. I for one believe that Google, the US, and the world, are only going to be able to encourage further democratic changes in China by engagement instead of isolating them.
By choosing to isolate China because you don't agree with some of their policies, you end up encouraging them to be more and more oppressive. This is because without economic development, the coutry really won't have the means to be able to allow more freedoms. And instead will be forced to become more and more extreme the other way. ie North Korea.
However, if you choose to become economically invested in a China, like we've been doing for 30 years now, and work to encourage growth in whatever means that you are allowed, you end up with dual benefits. One being that China has become economically dependent on us which leads to us being safer in general, and gives us much more clout to encourage change. And two, democratic changes end up developing naturally, because with more economic prosperity, you end up with a more educated populous that will demands changes.
Democracies can't be built in a day, no matter how much we might wish otherwise. It's going to take a time for China to continue growing and give it's citizens more and more freedoms. But they already recognized a while ago that strict Communism isn't an effective economic model, which is why they've already instituted the democratic and capatistic changes that they have. With time, they will be able to make more. And I believe that is the real trend.
As much as I find the decision to censor unsettling, it's actually an easy decision. And I for one would much prefer that a company like Google, which has a motto of not being evil, to be the one doing the censoring and admitting to it. Because the alternative is a company that wouldn't even bother admitting to it or cared about whether it was truly doing evil or not.
Bravo Google.
As someone who has gone through Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and has personal experience with psychiatric pharmacology, I can say that this is a bad idea for multiple reasons.
The majority of the harm that PTSD causes isn't because it isn't treatable, it's because it's not even diagnosed. I of course was aware of the condition when I went through my own trauma, but I never considered that it would ever apply to me. Instead, because there is such an inherant shame involved in victomhood, I chose to try to suppress my experience. Suppression did not work. Instead, it took a year and failing out of college before others picked up on that something was wrong.
Now, after a couple years of therapy and some anti-depressants to fight depression that was a side effect of the untreated PTSD, I can say that I have at least some perspective on the condition. And I would not want to have taken a pill to simply lesson the memory. Once I finally recognized that I had a condition, I was able to go through a process to intellectually and emotionally understand the trauma. It took a lot of time, and help from others. But I've been able to use that experience as a point of passion and drive to prevent similiar things from happening to others. And I do not believe that a simple intellectual understanding would be enough to go through the inherant discomfort that comes with talking about trauma.
Here is what I really fear about a pill though. It's that people will use the excuse of a pill to not really treat sufferers of PTSD. Or even worse, that those victoms will believe that just because they have taken some pill, that they do not need real treatment. There's already enough of a stigma for those who have gone through trauma, that they don't need the associated guilt that a pill should be enough. It's imperative that we talk about trauma, and truly appreciate it for what it is. There should be a drive for more talking about this condition, instead of a drive for a simple pill to "fix it".
Trauma is part of being human. The last thing we need to be teaching people is that if you've gone through something bad that you should just take a pill and start from scratch. All memories, good and bad, are important for growth. And tramatic ones are arguably even more important, as it allows you to protect yourself for things happening again. This is why the brain reacts the way it does in making these memories stronger in general.
So in conclusion, I would hope that we would put more effort into finding and diagnosing PTSD, instead looking for a wonder cure. Once people are finally told that they have this condition, they often can make efforts themselves to get better. It takes time, but with help and understanding it's very much possible.
I also find it a little annoying when people ask me this question. Or when it's often the first thing people are asked in overheard conversations. But this annoyance is simply because I want whatever conversation that I'm having or others are having to get to the point as quickly as possible so that it can end. The idea of tourists calling their family and stating "Guess what? I'm calling from the plane!" simply for the novelty of it very annoying. But I'll still be asking people where they are when calling them if I forsee the conversation lasting for more than a couple minutes, just so that I know.
This is true, but BETA for Google simply means any product that isn't going to be making them money, at least not directly. If noone's actually going to be paying for it, then why should they take the responsibility that is associated with calling something a full release? The answer is, there is no reason. Noone cares what they call it except for the fickle techies who feel the need to complain about the semantics of how most of their products are still in beta.
For all intensive purposes though, Gmail is a fully released product. It works better and faster than any other email service out there, many of which claim to be "final versions". That comparison alone should tell you what stage Gmail is really in. So as long as they continue providing this wonderful service for free, I'm cool with them claiming it's in whatever stage they want, even ALPHA.
Not until a robot can use a mirror to check out its own ass will it truly self aware.
Bin Laden has effected the world much more dramatically than Giuliani ever could. Yes, building is much harder than destroying. But this isn't a test of what they actually accomplished and how hard it was, but instead who they've influenced and how strongly. Bin Laden spent years training thousands of terrorists how to opporate on their own. And then he spent years performing bigger and bigger acts of terrorism until he finally reached the big one. Demonstrating how 19 committed individuals can accomplish so much with only the use of box cutters and the willingness to sacrifice their own lives. Yes, we're still in the middle east. Yes, afganistan has had a regime change. Yes, Iraq has been "liberated". And in theory Bin Laden is hiding in some cave somewhere. But we're left with millions of people with the knowledge that they could perform major acts of terrorism if they simply have the will to do so. Now, here's hoping that most of them find our goals and means altruistic in the end. But I can predict without much forethought that we're going to be hearing the name Bin Laden decades to come, long past any influence the Giuliani has been able to make. As for Bill Gates, I certainly believe that he deserves this award. Microsoft being evil and personal wealth arguments aside, Gates has invested a lot of not only money but time into the cause of World Health, specifically in Africa. This is an area of the world that is still being ignored too often. So we can hope that Bono and the Gates' continue to advocate for this cause, and that in the years to come they can be known for influencing the rest of the world into helping to encourage progress in Africa.