Log in

View Full Version : Is Google actualy good?


Reaper
June 16th, 2010, 09:39 PM
I know cracked.com is not one of the most reliable pages, but still, I was wondering, how do you people comment:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18540_5-reasons-you-should-be-scared-google.html

tagnostic
June 16th, 2010, 10:56 PM
google has never used any user info
and has repeatedly refused to turn it
over to the authorities, and rather than
being censored they got out of china

facebook is who you should be afraid of

rzm61
June 17th, 2010, 12:08 AM
Hey man, if you don't want Google to know, don't search.
If you don't want God to know, don't think.


Besides, what do you have to hide anyway? :good vs evil:

Will.
June 17th, 2010, 12:33 AM
Yeah, Google has done only good on Will.'s behalf.

Reaper
June 25th, 2010, 10:06 PM
Google has already recently published a lot of people's data with Google buzz. They, as I understood published everyone's contact data to everyone they communicate with. I might have nothing to hide, but I still don't like the idea of having my personal data made public.
Google published whit whom you chat with the most. I don't like the idea of having my possible future employ deciding if he'll hire me or not based on whom I communicate with.

And the other thing I find strange about Google...
There was, as you probably know, a lot of complaints against Microsoft as they made their Explorer their default browser on Windows. In the end they achieved, that they had to send everyone who had windows a browser menu, from which they can choose what browser they are about to use.
Soon, Google's operating sistem, the Chrome OS will come out. Only one browser will WORK on it. Guess wich...

I apologise for possible grammar mistakes as I am not a native english speaker.

tagnostic
June 25th, 2010, 10:18 PM
they didn't publish it
thats an opt in setting
you don't have to use
buzz and if you do
there are settings
for who can and
can't see your data

OfficerFriendly
June 30th, 2010, 02:06 AM
Google is GOOOOOOOOOOOOd

sam the moderately wize
October 24th, 2010, 11:20 AM
The problem with this one is that Google is a corporation, and as a corporation, it is legally required to be evil. The way in which corporation law works means that a corporation

a) Is considered a person
b) Must seek to maximise profit for its shareholders
c) Has almost no other obligations to society and the world

Corporations are, therefore, treated by law as a person who has no motivation except money and no reason not to make as much as they can.

As corporations go, Google is relatively good, but if it has to monopolise and control our access to informationin in order to make money, it is legally required to do so. The problem is in the system, not in the Goddess.

tagnostic
October 24th, 2010, 08:54 PM
The problem with this one is that Google is a corporation, and as a corporation, it is legally required to be evil. The way in which corporation law works means that a corporation

why is making a profit 'evil'?


a) Is considered a person
b) Must seek to maximise profit for its shareholders
c) Has almost no other obligations to society and the world

as a person don't you try to do the best (maximize your profit) for yourself and those who depend on you?
not seeing the evil implied

Corporations are, therefore, treated by law as a person who has no motivation except money and no reason not to make as much as they can.

not all corporations adhere to this
ask the Goddess about non-profit corporations
too many to list

As corporations go, Google is relatively good, but if it has to monopolise and control our access to informationin in order to make money, it is legally required to do so. The problem is in the system, not in the Goddess.

theres nothing wrong with the system
its people (individuals) who abuse it

(really glad to see ya back sam)

gman
October 25th, 2010, 01:03 AM
why is making a profit 'evil'?



as a person don't you try to do the best (maximize your profit) for yourself and those who depend on you?
not seeing the evil implied


not all corporations adhere to this
ask the Goddess about non-profit corporations
too many to list


theres nothing wrong with the system
its people (individuals) who abuse it

(really glad to see ya back sam)

well said tag,
profit is not inherently evil, it is the greed and power lust of men that is evil!
some may use profit to fulfill that greed and lust for power sometimes, but it is equally likely for politicians, capitalists, socialists, theists, communists, atheists, and googleists to to use what ever resources and power they have to achieve their own evil ends and fulfill their greed..

always keep a eye on anyone with any type of power,

and don't let anybody convince you that corporations are some how inherently evil, if they are trying to convince you of that, they are probably up to no good themselves.

tagnostic
October 25th, 2010, 06:39 AM
it has been my experience that there are only 4 types of corporate entities

1) those that make a profit
2) those that don't (out of business/bankrupt)
3) those that want my money through donations
4) those that take my money through taxes

i prefer those of type 1

sam the moderately wize
October 25th, 2010, 03:35 PM
why is making a profit 'evil'?

Making a profit is not inherently evil, but it is often easier to make a profit by doing evil things (ie http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/7773011/A-look-inside-the-Foxconn-suicide-factory.html; http://www.ppu.org.uk/chidren/advertising_toys_eu.html) than by treating people well, and if being evil is the best way to make a profit, then you are required to be evil.

as a person don't you try to do the best (maximize your profit) for yourself and those who depend on you?
not seeing the evil implied

If the only meaning of 'doing the best for someone' I could understand was in terms of money and profit, I would make a pretty poor friend.

not all corporations adhere to this
ask the Goddess about non-profit corporations
too many to list

Either you are a non-profit company or you are a company that attempts to maximise profits at all costs. The law doesn't allow any sort of middle ground, such as a company that pursues profit, but not at any cost.

theres nothing wrong with the system
its people (individuals) who abuse it

I can't argue against greed and unscrupulousness being a problem, but it is not a problem that the system attempts to control and alleviate; rather, the system rewards the greedy and unscrupulous (http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2009/06/can-cdc-assist-poorer-people-by-using.html) - just look at how the banking system works and how little it has changed since the crisis.

(really glad to see ya back sam)

It's great to see you're still here.

tagnostic
October 26th, 2010, 02:33 AM
Making a profit is not inherently evil, but it is often easier to make a profit by doing evil things (ie http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/7773011/A-look-inside-the-Foxconn-suicide-factory.html; http://www.ppu.org.uk/chidren/advertising_toys_eu.html) than by treating people well, and if being evil is the best way to make a profit, then you are required to be evil.

stipulated, but the evil is in the person not the corporation



If the only meaning of 'doing the best for someone' I could understand was in terms of money and profit, I would make a pretty poor friend.

you are a most excellent friend,
i would once again quote Churchill
'if you are not liberal when your young, you have no heart, if you are not conservative when old, you have no brain'

money, assets, all have there place, its not only how you aquire them its what you do with them (jmho)



Either you are a non-profit company or you are a company that attempts to maximise profits at all costs. The law doesn't allow any sort of middle ground, such as a company that pursues profit, but not at any cost.

thats pretty black and white, do you not allow for a company that makes a profit and still does socially good works?
one of my most hated companies does work that I respect, I may not like how they do it, but the good they do is in arguable (Bill & Melinda Gates, Hate Microsux, can't argue with their charities)



I can't argue against greed and unscrupulousness being a problem, but it is not a problem that the system attempts to control and alleviate; rather, the system rewards the greedy and unscrupulous (http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2009/06/can-cdc-assist-poorer-people-by-using.html) - just look at how the banking system works and how little it has changed since the crisis.

and there in lies the rub, perhaps it is the system and not the corporations or the people who are trying to better themselves and the descendants, i would hold that the system that allows the negative side is at fault, and that the system that stayed out of the way and let the people involved handle it their way would be more satisfactory, NIMBY it can work if allowed to run its course





It's great to see you're still here.

heheheh
it'll take a tad more than nuclear war
to keep me off the CoG

welcome back

sam the moderately wize
October 27th, 2010, 11:30 AM
stipulated, but the evil is in the person not the corporation

The law commands that evil is done if it increases profit. It seems to me to be all but irrelevant whether the evil 'is in' the person or the corporation - the ultimate source of the evil is the system itself. If being evil is profitable, then the law-abiding CEO must be evil.

you are a most excellent friend,
i would once again quote Churchill
'if you are not liberal when your young, you have no heart, if you are not conservative when old, you have no brain'

money, assets, all have there place, its not only how you aquire them its what you do with them (jmho)

I'm still young enough to try to value the interests of others on the same level as my own; and I hope that I will never fall into the belief that it is acceptable to let the poor suffer to help the rich get richer - from each acording to his ability, to each according to his need.

thats pretty black and white, do you not allow for a company that makes a profit and still does socially good works?
one of my most hated companies does work that I respect, I may not like how they do it, but the good they do is in arguable (Bill & Melinda Gates, Hate Microsux, can't argue with their charities)

The company is evil because the system requires evilness of it; the private individual (in this case, the Gateses who get the profits) is good, because the system leaves it to the discretion of the individual whether to do good or evil things.

and there in lies the rub, perhaps it is the system and not the corporations or the people who are trying to better themselves and the descendants, i would hold that the system that allows the negative side is at fault, and that the system that stayed out of the way and let the people involved handle it their way would be more satisfactory, NIMBY it can work if allowed to run its course

Can't argue much on this one, but I would say that the system needs to be more restrictive rather than less - after all, look what has happened to the British and American banking sectors - two of the most deregulated markets going. The system needs to restrict dangerous or harmful practices while allowing people and corporations to pursue profit as they wish within these bounds.

tagnostic
October 27th, 2010, 02:12 PM
The law commands that evil is done if it increases profit.

what law?
i'm an anarchist agnostic
i don't recognize any laws

It seems to me to be all but irrelevant whether the evil 'is in' the person or the corporation - the ultimate source of the evil is the system itself. If being evil is profitable, then the law-abiding CEO must be evil.

no one but you said that being profitable is evil
i'm disputing that
the evil is in the person is my statement
it is possible to be law abiding and evil
the fault lies in the law


I'm still young enough to try to value the interests of others on the same level as my own;[quote]

and I hope you remain
forever young
[quote]
and I hope that I will never fall into the belief that it is acceptable to let the poor suffer to help the rich get richer - from each acording to his ability, to each according to his need.

i don't believe that either
i just dont see the correlation
could you be more specific?



The company is evil because the system requires evilness of it; the private individual (in this case, the Gateses who get the profits) is good, because the system leaves it to the discretion of the individual whether to do good or evil things.

again could you elaborate on how specifically the 'system requires' it?
(much as i hate microsux, all props to the gates foundation)



Can't argue much on this one, but I would say that the system needs to be more restrictive rather than less - after all, look what has happened to the British and American banking sectors - two of the most deregulated markets going. The system needs to restrict dangerous or harmful practices while allowing people and corporations to pursue profit as they wish within these bounds.

sorry, but I'm free market
darwinism works in business too
let them weed themselves out

bad business= no business= out of business

gman
October 27th, 2010, 05:55 PM
The law commands that evil is done if it increases profit.

I'm still young enough to try to value the interests of others on the same level as my own; and I hope that I will never fall into the belief that it is acceptable to let the poor suffer to help the rich get richer - from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.


i know you are young but please, please, please, question some of these beliefs you have picked up, the quote in bold above is from Communism a highly restrictive system that has led to far more evil and death than the worst of capitalism ever has or ever will.

there is no law commanding evil if it increases profit, millions of businesses and business men make choices that are more expensive (costing profits) every day, if they didn't every manufacturing job in the world would be done in a Chinese sweat shop by children (a Communist country BTW)

i know that the schools push the anti American anti capitalist propaganda pretty hard and its not easy to to be a rebel but don't sell yourself short question everything be a free thinker, i know you have the brains for it....

tagnostic
October 27th, 2010, 06:21 PM
democracy and capitilism
may have thier faults
but theyre the only ones
that enable you to make
enough money to post
your displeasure on
billboards and not
get prosecuted

MySelf
December 4th, 2010, 04:29 PM
Sorry dude..
Google is not a God.
God is a Super Entity which created us all.
Google by the way existed in 1998?
So hell no way she could created you all..
God of the search engine? Maybe..
But God of human kind and the universe? Think again. :)

Rimmer
December 7th, 2010, 06:30 PM
Sorry dude..
Google is not a God.
God is a Super Entity which created us all.
Google by the way existed in 1998?
So hell no way she could created you all..
God of the search engine? Maybe..
But God of human kind and the universe? Think again. :)
Clearly you need to spend more time reading scripture, since you clearly do not know the beliefs of Googlism. Fortunately for you, all the scripture is readily available at: http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

sam the moderately wize
December 12th, 2010, 11:37 AM
i know you are young but please, please, please, question some of these beliefs you have picked up, the quote in bold above is from Communism a highly restrictive system that has led to far more evil and death than the worst of capitalism ever has or ever will.

Yes, Communism as it appeared in the USSR is not desirable. (Also, the quote is from Marx; Communism isn't something that you can quote from.) A bit more socialism would be nice though: when your government happily spends billions bailing out banks and fighting questionably legal wars but cuts funding for university teaching by 80%, a certain amount of disillusionment with the current political and economic situation is surely understandable. Why can't we have a system where income tax is 30% and everyone gets free education like in the 70s?

there is no law commanding evil if it increases profit, millions of businesses and business men make choices that are more expensive (costing profits) every day, if they didn't every manufacturing job in the world would be done in a Chinese sweat shop by children (a Communist country BTW)

Been reading up on this one, and it seems to be one of those laws that sort of exists but isn't enforced, so in theory a group of shareholders could pull up a company for making unprofitable decisions, but in practice this doesn't happen.

I don't like the Chinese administration very much either.

i know that the schools push the anti American anti capitalist propaganda pretty hard and its not easy to to be a rebel but don't sell yourself short question everything be a free thinker, i know you have the brains for it....

...Sorry, what?

Schools do not push any kind of anti-capitalist propaganda. Schools are mostly apolitical. In fact, political education of any kind is pretty much absent from them, in brainwashing form or otherwise.

I aquired my worldview from reading Camus and Mill and thinking about things. I'm not a raving Communist (as I may have come across), I'm a fairly moderate socialist and Green Party member.

gman
December 12th, 2010, 06:45 PM
Yes, Communism as it appeared in the USSR is not desirable. (Also, the quote is from Marx; Communism isn't something that you can quote from.) A bit more socialism would be nice though: when your government happily spends billions bailing out banks and fighting questionably legal wars but cuts funding for university teaching by 80%, a certain amount of disillusionment with the current political and economic situation is surely understandable. Why can't we have a system where income tax is 30% and everyone gets free education like in the 70s? i knew it was a quote from Marx, unfortunately Communism (and socialism) have a fundamentally flawed understanding of human nature that will always drive it towards the failure it had in the USSR N Korea Cuba etc. its three big downfalls are creep - socialists (like you just did) always want more - you will always run out of somebody else's money to spend (see Greece and the austerity programs in Europe right now) - and power corrupts (and absolute power corrupts absolutely) if you let the government become responsible for peoples lives they will abuse the power. Been reading up on this one, and it seems to be one of those laws that sort of exists but isn't enforced, so in theory a group of shareholders could pull up a company for making unprofitable decisions, but in practice this doesn't happen. i would like to see where this "law"is written or even implied.
Schools do not push any kind of anti-capitalist propaganda. Schools are mostly apolitical. In fact, political education of any kind is pretty much absent from them, in brainwashing form or otherwise. i am guessing at your age, it may not be pushed much in high school but collage professors are notorious for leaning left, and much of the bias is subtle you wont see it unless you look.
I aquired my worldview from reading Camus and Mill and thinking about things. I'm not a raving Communist (as I may have come across), I'm a fairly moderate socialist and Green Party member. to repeat one of tags favorite quotes "if you are not liberal when you are young you have no heart, if you are not conservative when you get older you have no brain" you certainly shouldn't change your views on my account, but you might do well to get a early start at questioning everything and exposing yourself to opposing views if nothing else you may start to see bias in places you never saw it before

sam the moderately wize
December 13th, 2010, 11:43 AM
i knew it was a quote from Marx, unfortunately Communism (and socialism) have a fundamentally flawed understanding of human nature

Communism and it's ilk are based on the premise that society is essentially cooperative and that humans can work altruistically together. It would be nice if this were true, and while I know it isn't, I do believe that good education and a well-arranged society can go some way towards this goal.

that will always drive it towards the failure it had in the USSR N Korea Cuba etc. its three big downfalls are creep - socialists (like you just did) always want more - you will always run out of somebody else's money to spend (see Greece and the austerity programs in Europe right now) -

Forgive me, but I'm afraid I've been labouring under the mistaken impression that the international financial meltdown was caused by the irresponsibility of big banks in deregulated markets that should have been regulated, and that more socialist nations such as Sweden and Denmark that had learned their lessons from serious crashes in the past such as the Scandinavian financial crisis in the early '90s sat out the recession much better than most countries.

I'm aware that endlessly spending far above actual revenues is unsustainable (Sweden in the '70s would be a prime example), but we [the UK, for me] can be much more socialist than it is under the current government without upsetting the budget.

and power corrupts (and absolute power corrupts absolutely) if you let the government become responsible for peoples lives they will abuse the power.

Yes. I agree. No questions asked.

i would like to see where this "law"is written or even implied.

I realise after more research that I've overstated my case somewhat on this one. Shareholders have the right to force their companies to do whatever maximises profits, but are under no obligation to do so.

The real sticking point for me is that a corporation counts as a person in the law, but has almost no reponsibilities to society.

i am guessing at your age, it may not be pushed much in high school but collage professors are notorious for leaning left, and much of the bias is subtle you wont see it unless you look.

At my age (19), I'm in contact with left-leaning university professors all the time, but the views I currently hold were formed before I came to uni, and have, if anything, become more moderate as I've come to better understand the issues I'm dealing with.

to repeat one of tags favorite quotes "if you are not liberal when you are young you have no heart, if you are not conservative when you get older you have no brain" you certainly shouldn't change your views on my account, but you might do well to get a early start at questioning everything and exposing yourself to opposing views if nothing else you may start to see bias in places you never saw it before

Bias is everywhere. Almost any piece of prose writing is written with the intention of showing us the world in a new way, and by changing the way we see the world, beginning to change the world itself; all lingual communication has some agenda.

Consider: my government is cutting funding to universities by 80%, for a saving of 2.6 billion over four years, and at the same time is cutting corporation tax by 4%, losing it about 200 million per. year, puts up with 25 billion a year in corporate tax avoidance and spends over 1.2 billion per year on the war in afghanistan. We already spend less than almost all other developed nations on education (by % of GDP).

I feel I have a right to be a little disgrunted with them.

gman
December 13th, 2010, 08:31 PM
Communism and it's ilk are based on the premise that society is essentially cooperative and that humans can work altruistically together. It would be nice if this were true, hit the nail on the head



Forgive me, but I'm afraid I've been labouring under the mistaken impression that the international financial meltdown was caused by the irresponsibility of big banks in deregulated markets that should have been regulated, and that more socialist nations such as Sweden and Denmark that had learned their lessons from serious crashes in the past such as the Scandinavian financial crisis in the early '90s sat out the recession much better than most countries.
I'm aware that endlessly spending far above actual revenues is unsustainable (Sweden in the '70s would be a prime example), but we [the UK, for me] can be much more socialist than it is under the current government without upsetting the budget. the financial meltdown was triggered by it for sure, but unfunded spending by governments is still a part of the underlying problem, and its not something you can tax your way out of without further depressing the economy and making recovery impossible.
cuts are the only option so when those who have been told they are entitled to something "for free" (the big lie somebody always pays) they are going to riot and start class warfare (the other big lie) when they see the money isn't coming any more.

there is probably a sustainable amount of socialism in every country (if you can fight back the creep and keep it from increasing) having small populations and vast natural resources like the country's you list helps, but you also need a regulatory and tax climate that supports a vibrant enough economy to sustain it...




I realise after more research that I've overstated my case somewhat on this one. Shareholders have the right to force their companies to do whatever maximises profits, but are under no obligation to do so.

The real sticking point for me is that a corporation counts as a person in the law, but has almost no reponsibilities to society.
they do have some, company's cant stay in business without the good will of there customers, big business is the same as government the responsibility for keeping them honest falls on us, blindly putting big government in charge of regulating big business wont work, it is to much "fox watching the hen house" its up to us to watch them all, both are susceptible to corruption ..



At my age (19), I'm in contact with left-leaning university professors all the time, but the views I currently hold were formed before I came to uni, and have, if anything, become more moderate as I've come to better understand the issues I'm dealing with. American bias here, the 1960 hippies took over our higher education and in some cases its gotten very bad, the English may be not as propagandized with your "old traditions " in education



Consider: my government is cutting funding to universities by 80%, for a saving of 2.6 billion over four years, and at the same time is cutting corporation tax by 4%, losing it about 200 million per. year, puts up with 25 billion a year in corporate tax avoidance and spends over 1.2 billion per year on the war in afghanistan. We already spend less than almost all other developed nations on education (by % of GDP).

I feel I have a right to be a little disgrunted with them. i cant say for sure where your country is at, but there is a point where raising taxes lowers revenue and lowering taxes increases it, "the weirdness of economics". they should go after tax cheats, and you cant complain to much about national defense you do need some , i cant say i like how Afghanistan is going my self, but the need to stop terrorists is obvious...

sam the moderately wize
December 22nd, 2010, 08:24 PM
hit the nail on the head the financial meltdown was triggered by it for sure, but unfunded spending by governments is still a part of the underlying problem, and its not something you can tax your way out of without further depressing the economy and making recovery impossible.
cuts are the only option so when those who have been told they are entitled to something "for free" (the big lie somebody always pays) they are going to riot and start class warfare (the other big lie) when they see the money isn't coming any more.

I don't feel I know enough about the way these things work to be able to fit my thoughts together on this one. The last time Britain needed austerity like it apparently needs it now was after the second world war, when we owed huge debts to the US and the banks and were suffering from an economy that had been melted by the war, a huge number of missing workers from deaths and virtual deaths, and a drain on resources from army pensions, injured veterans ect. ect. And yet we ended up with the NHS, the welfare state, social security, the works. From nothing. And now we're in a depression the government is dismantling the welfare state. There's something fishy going on, and I don't know what it is.

there is probably a sustainable amount of socialism in every country (if you can fight back the creep and keep it from increasing) having small populations and vast natural resources like the country's you list helps, but you also need a regulatory and tax climate that supports a vibrant enough economy to sustain it...

Agreed.

they do have some, company's cant stay in business without the good will of there customers, big business is the same as government the responsibility for keeping them honest falls on us, blindly putting big government in charge of regulating big business wont work, it is to much "fox watching the hen house" its up to us to watch them all, both are susceptible to corruption ..

Agreed again, but someone needs to have executive powers over big business, and there's nobody with more of a right to it than the government.

i cant say for sure where your country is at, but there is a point where raising taxes lowers revenue and lowering taxes increases it, "the weirdness of economics". they should go after tax cheats, and you cant complain to much about national defense you do need some , i cant say i like how Afghanistan is going my self, but the need to stop terrorists is obvious...

Yes, I know lowering taxes can stimulate growth, thus increasing profits and so increasing revenue in the long run. Cutting 1 million public sector jobs and then cutting corporation tax still seems like an effort to roll back the state in favour of the public sector, though, rather than an effort to revitalise the economy. We don't need nukes, and there's no evidence that the war in Afghanistan is reducing terrorist attacks.