ChineseChef
-
Posts
927 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Status Updates
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store Home
Everything posted by ChineseChef
-
Which MS has repeatedly shown they have little interest in, and want to remove more and more power from the owners, I mean renters, of their OS. -
I would have thought a mining board would have more regular sized PCI slots to fill it up with GPUs. Whats with all the PCI express slots?
-
I honestly wonder at this point what kind of revelation it would take to actually get a reaction from the public. I don't think there is any amount of spying that would cause the public to care enough to do anything about it. As long as people aren't being blocked from accessing the stuff they want, they will just roll over for anything the government does. The masses are so uneducated and indifferent about the dangers of all this spying, that by the time they figure it out it will have been too late to do anything about it decades ago. And the general attitude that it actually helps fight "terrorism" or whatever the current buzzword is makes it even harder to get people to care. They think they are trading freedoms for security. But you aren't getting any more security, just giving up freedoms.
-
That said, if you had the complete source code, it would potentially allow you to understand how things are working better, to allow mods to more efficiently do what you want. And if someone had actually gotten ahold of the full source code, that would provide some insane motivation for others to try and get ahold of the compiler.
-
Would have been nice if the full source code leaked. It would let us take a look under the hood, see what Windows is really doing with all the tracking stuff. Which would either vindicate MS by showing how they truly are just after service metrics to improve windows. Or show how they are spying on everything you are doing. Plus it likely would have shown a light on anything else sketchy or malicious they were doing. And allow for insane customization potentially.
-
Ok, well, now I feel like an ass for my response. I agree with your assessment.
-
You bring up excellent points, and while I could continue arguing, I have realized my problem is not with the laws and their enforcement. But with the fact that human society is so weak that we allow these things to happen and need the laws to stop them. The proud ignorance and cold indifference of the masses is what allows any company to get away with things considered "bad". In your Google blocking Bing example, if the entire consumer base decided to never again buy an android phone after Google did that, companies would be really hesitant to ever pull a stunt like that again. But you and I both know that would never actually happen, and the companies know that most people will roll over and let anything happen.
-
Hold the fuck on, am I agreeing with you, or disagreeing with you?? lol I think I may have confused myself about your intentions.
-
An assault rifle is a selective fire weapon, meaning it can fire single fire, or multi-fire (burst or full auto). These are already highly regulated, and ultra expensive (around 20k for a full auto M16). And they can only be owned by civilians if the weapon was produced before 1986. An assault weapon is a term the media made up to classify any "scary" looking rifle they didn't want the plebs to have. All an assault weapon is, is a regular hunting rifle, but with tacti-cool toys on it. There is functionally no difference between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon. It is 100% about appearance. Also, the assault weapon ban didn't actually prevent assault weapons from being bought or sold, it only outlawed certain appearances, it prevented nothing functionally within guns. It was 100% cosmetic.
-
About the sudden gun debate: The majority of people asking for more gun control don't understand the current laws or even know much about real guns, which is always frustrating. And a surprising amount of people for gun rights, are immune to "what about the mass shootings" because they understand that freedom comes with certain costs. And gun enthusiasts understand that in life shit happens, and when shit happens with guns people die. And a few deaths which are statistically insignificant are worth the cost of freedom to most gun owners. Everyone wants to go after the scary "assault" weapons, but they are used less than 10% of the time in all gun deaths, and lots of gun control folks want to ignore that more than half of gun deaths are suicide, and 3/4 of the murders with guns are crime vs crime (gang on gang) and they use hand guns. But that is a debate for a different time and place. Back to AI cars: I think a lot of you people saying safety will motivate legislation are ignoring the money and the voter bases. No one is going to vote for a person or law that is going to remove their own ability to drive their own car. If you still have a manual drive car, you will never vote to ban manual drive cars unless you are getting a free AI car. Plus SO SO SO many of you people arguing about "ban manual drive" "just use future uber" are ignoring the large amount of people that don't live in big cities. Or you are from not the US, and you have good public transportation. In like 99% of the US, public transport is horrid or non-existent. And a lot of people live too far away for an AI-taxi service to be practical in any way. We can't just tell all the rural folks that they aren't allowed to drive their cars anymore, and they won't need to buy a new one when that won't be a real option for them. People who don't live in high population areas will need to own their own cars if they want any real mobility, whether AI or manual.
-
I have said ads for my entire argument, I haven't moved the goals at all. Google is not putting ads in place of search results. They are putting their ads above the results links, which they have done for many years now. The problem here is the common public is stupid, and I don't think laws should ever be put in place because people are too stupid and lazy to fend for themselves in such a simple capacity as having to simply scroll down, or learn how to use a search engine. Heaven forbid we try a little survival of the fittest.
-
Monopoly is about control over the consumers choice. Google can't control where you go online. You can't drive down only 1 road, and then complain because that 1 road doesn't go every single place equally. Google has a majority market share, but no control over the market as a whole. As long as consumers can go elsewhere, they don't have monopolistic power over the users. We are talking about search results here, you can still go to the company websites, to other store websites, Google will even provide you the links. Maybe just scroll down?
-
Your entire argument is that Best Buy has a captive audience because people walked in to their store. And yet, right next to the Best Buy there are 20 other Electronics stores. Yes Google is the biggest, yes most people use Google. But your entire argument is that because people CHOOSE to use Google, that Google has to host competitor's ads, to their own detriment. Why should Google have to host of companies ads above their own for free?? Because people are too lazy to do any real research? Than too bad, fuck those people, they get what they get.
-
The issue here is I am in disagreement with the inference of your facts. I am not disputing the size, nor the sway of such a large company. But, Google has no power to control the actions of the consumer/user. Google cannot prevent a competitor's service from being used. Google cannot affect the ability of the consumer outside of Google's platform. So while Google has great power in negotiations, they can't control the consumer if the consumer wants to leave. From the tiny fluff piece you call and article " 1. Since monopolies are the only provider, ". Google is in no way the only provider. You claim that Google is a monopoly because you say it is. Not because it is. It doesn't matter if they have 99.99999% of the market share. If you have other options, and Google can't prevent you from using them, they aren't a monopoly. Your water provider is a monopoly. Your electricity is a monopoly. You have no choice but to buy from them if you want water or power. Google is the big dog, but you don't have to use Google if you don't want to. Thus, not a real monopoly.
-
1 - No, I don't see anything wrong with it from a legal standpoint. Sucks for AMD, but this is real life, get gud or get out. 2 - Personally, I don't see why you should have a responsibility to not "win" your market segment 3 - I already stated that regulations should be there for safety and honesty. I don't want to go back to the days of finding metal nails and human fingers inside "processed" meat cans. 4 - This I can't really argue, if those are the rules, than so be it. I do disagree with it though. And I doubt the public will be voting against it any time soon if they think it should be instated. To expound, I do think that this situation is requiring Google to actively help their competitors. Google is providing the platform, the engine, and the ads. If these companies aren't paying to be promoted, than saying that Google should promote them equally with their own ads, is basically giving all ads free to competitors. If these companies are paying Google, than they may have claim that they aren't getting the exposure they are paying for but that is a different issue entirely. This is along the arguments that media platforms have to allow "dissenting" opinions, whatever they may be for the situation. But that ignores the cost of running the websites and services, and most often these arguments are made when the dissenter doesn't pay. So for this situation, if the companies aren't paying to have their ads on Googles ad platform, which is what Google is, they are getting free ads that Google is paying to host. Which is forcing Google to pay to host their competitors ads.
-
To add to your points, there is also the issue of old people who shouldn't drive anymore. I live in the south, and during the winter we get all the snowbirds coming down here, showing how poorly they can handle driving. It is not uncommon to have some old person driving circles in an intersection because they forgot where they were going, or old people driving down the wrong side of the road having no idea what they were doing. But we all just kind of let it happen, cause society doesn't want to take away their license, since that would take away their mobility. Which I kind of understand, no driving can mean being totally stranded and dependent on expensive taxi services or unreliable/unwilling people. In the US we have a real attitude of if you can't do it yourself, than you don't deserve to do it. So lots of old people kind of get forgotten or just get left to die and stop being a burden on society. AI cars should allow families and local gov'ts to more easily take away driver's licenses from those that genuinely can't handle it any more. They would be able to maintain their mobility, and it would even allow people who can't drive now to be able to get around, such as blind folks and other disabled. While there are services for this now, they are usually quite expensive, and normalizing AI driving would drastically reduce the cost of such services.
-
What percentage makes it a monopoly? Where is the cut off? How few others have to be in the market? I am not saying Google is some small fry. I am under no delusions that Google isn't the main search engine that everyone uses. But a monopoly means exclusive CONTROL of the market. And Google only has teh market share because people choose to use it. Not because it has any say over the market. If everyone decided tomorrow that they would only use Bing, Google couldn't do anything about that. Google couldn't stop the consumers/users from leaving. Thus Google has no real control over the marketplace, in spite of their massive market share. In a real monopoly, the company on top gets to decide what the consumers/users do, and what their options are for access. Which sounds like Google, until you realize that anyone can immediately go to any other search engine. And Google can't stop them.
-
How can a 100% voluntary non geographically limited service have a monopoly in any way?? You can't have a monopoly on search. Unless they are going to ISPs and data providers and having other search engines shut down, they are in no way a monopoly. It doesn't matter how much more they are used than other services. If you have other options, they don't have a monopoly. End of story. Regardless of usage rates.
-
I mean, your scenario describing "what if Walmart did .." They actively do that. They actively reduce jobs and wages wherever they go. They actively fight local stores. So, that nightmare scenario you describe is actually just reality, for Walmart. (which I hate for the very reasons listed there) In the start, Google was one of many, they still are one of many. Yes they are huge, but so what? Why should they not show their own ads, and not their competitors? Should the Ford website show ads for the GMC/Chevy versions of all the Ford cars? That would be more fair. Not talking about show rooms, just the websites.
-
That is a fantastic example in which I mostly agree. I still don't see how it applies here. The argument here is that Google should be legally obligated to help their competitors over themselves. By not showing their own ads above others. Google showing their own ads first is considered anti competitive. But I don't understand why they should even need to show other company ads at all. I understand Google is the big dog, and everyone uses it. But they aren't shutting down their competitors. There are lots of other search engines. Lots of product aggregating websites. Why should Google have to show competitor's ads at all?
-
I would count this scenario as standard buyer beware, or at least buyer should do their own homework. If you go to only one store, its your own fault for not looking around. I don't feel this is anti-consumer in such a way that actively hurts the consumer. This is a scenario where consumers should shop smarter and spend their money elsewhere if they feel Google is being bad.
-
So, its bad because you say its bad, and I should just go sit in my corner and shut up, since you know better. Got it
-
Regulations should be about safety of products and practices. And about honesty of advertising those products. Along with preventing sales discrimination.
-
Why??? Why couldn't Google straight up block all competitor websites?? (from a moral/ethics stand, not a business/profits stand) You just keep saying they shouldn't, its wrong, this is the way it should be. BUT WHY??? Why should google not actively stomp their competitors???
-
WHY?????? Why do they have this duty? Where are you pulling this mindset from???? WHY DOES COMPANY A HAVE TO HELP COMPANY B????????!!!!!!!!!! Why is it the "right thing to do"? Why is it the moral thing? Google might be the biggest, but they can't block or stop their competitor search engines. They don't stop users from going anywhere else. This isn't a physical location/limitation that needs regulation to prevent a natural monopoly. Just use Bing or some other search engine.
