Recommended Posts

Google is evil

In the Biblical story, the serpent tempted Eve by offering

something she desired -- to be like God. It's appropriate

metaphor for every shyster that followed. Evildoers follow

a consistent pattern of offering something tempting that

masks something else. It's the art of misdirection that

assures them power or profit -- often both. If there is a

definition of evil, it's taking advantage of others for

personal gain. The more people, the more evil. Greater

the trickery, eviler still.

That sums up my assessment of Google's non-voting split

revealed yesterday concurrently with first-quarter earnings

. Stock-split seemingly gives investors twice as many

shares as they have now. But half will be non-voting ones,

diluting shareholders' say in Google's doings. Essentially,

the company seeks to have it both ways -- be private

while having the benefits of public investment. The most

disruptive company of the 21st century is at it again.

The implications are seemingly astounding.

Devil's Deal

As I opined in December 2010: "If there is a devil, a Great Satan

of modern technology companies, Google is it". Yesterday's

stunning proposal is more confirmation.

Read the full article over here

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1070247-google-is-evil/
Share on other sites

haha yep. i use plenty of google products. i hate to say i love google. :rofl:

everything i use is google cause their cross platform support is second to none. i don't feel like getting stuck in one ecosystem (microsoft, android or apple). i like using whatever i want and google lets me do that without issues.

What's wrong with stock split and still have founder(s) 51% control of the company?

Google split a share into two, but only one of them is voting share. But a few shareholders are exempted from this. And they are, Eric Schmidt, the two co-founders, and a few other people.

This takes power and control from the majority share holders, and gives them to the minority.

It's extremely unfair.

And a few of you are taking it from the consumer side. But it has nothing to do with it. If doesn't affect the Google's product users. It isn't "privacy issue", or some other "evil".

This is about the people who have ownership in Google, and the unfair treatment they are getting.

And a few of you are taking it from the consumer side. But it has nothing to do with it. If doesn't affect the Google's product users. It isn't "privacy issue", or some other "evil".

This is about the people who have ownership in Google, and the unfair treatment they are getting.

Have you watched The Social Network? If Google is evil, Zuckerberg and CO are the anti-christ.

Boohoo.

If you're not happy about Google's decision to split non-voting shares, then don't invest in Google!

Problem solved. Crisis averted.

That's okay, if you aren't already an investor. But what about the current owners.

It is like being unfairly treated by a business, and you go to a judge,and he rules that you shouldn't to that business anymore!

Another day, another Google smearing article. The propaganda peddlers are out in force. It's not associated with ICOMP is it by any chance?

It's hilarious.. calling Google evil based on how they give their shares.. ridiculous.. when you don't have anything else than start writing crap like this cause that's all you got.

I'm sure that's far better than hoarding 100 billion dollars of money that goes NOWHERE. Not into economy, not into investments.. nothing..

You did have a choice, you could have shut your Google account there and then.

Sorry, that's utter nonsense. I wish you'd medidate upon it. That goes for the whole delusional crowd who wouldn't stop their "say good or say nothing at all" yammering, it's gnawingly annoying.

"Close the account" or "don't use at all" is a ****ty choice. You know it. In fact, I wrote "resistance generally sucks", but I'll explain it - I want these services and I actually need them to do my job more or less successfully. Don't you understand it? If you do, why do you keep saying what you said there? Is this some sort of thing they make people say in EULAs or something? I never read them, I wouldn't know.

See, there's this moron thing I do - it's called thinking. The deal's bad. Either I'm totally screwed over time, falling behind, being jobless piece of crud, or I have to sell my personal information at a price I can neither control nor influence.

Now you may be extaticly happy about the free toaster they put as a gift but I'm not a single bit person. I find these things not only necessary but often times useful and fun. However, I don't have to either unconditionally love something or downright hate it and make a solemn wow to never ever see it again. And I will use that complain but continue to use option a lot, thank you very much.

I might add that deleting an account is completely senseless. That does not delete my information. And nor it should upon my sole request. It's not mine anymore, I've sold it, I've no say in the matter.

Sorry, that's utter nonsense. I wish you'd medidate upon it. That goes for the whole delusional crowd who wouldn't stop their "say good or say nothing at all" yammering, it's gnawingly annoying.

"Close the account" or "don't use at all" is a ****ty choice. You know it. In fact, I wrote "resistance generally sucks", but I'll explain it - I want these services and I actually need them to do my job more or less successfully. Don't you understand it? If you do, why do you keep saying what you said there? Is this some sort of thing they make people say in EULAs or something? I never read them, I wouldn't know.

See, there's this moron thing I do - it's called thinking. The deal's bad. Either I'm totally screwed over time, falling behind, being jobless piece of crud, or I have to sell my personal information at a price I can neither control nor influence.

Now you may be extaticly happy about the free toaster they put as a gift but I'm not a single bit person. I find these things not only necessary but often times useful and fun. However, I don't have to either unconditionally love something or downright hate it and make a solemn wow to never ever see it again. And I will use that complain but continue to use option a lot, thank you very much.

I might add that deleting an account is completely senseless. That does not delete my information. And nor it should upon my sole request. It's not mine anymore, I've sold it, I've no say in the matter.

You don't HAVE to give Google or any other company your personal information to use their products, Google has exactly as much of my private information as I CHOSE to give them which was barely nothing, as a matter of fact I could give you my real first and last name and you won't find anything other than my practically dead FB page, nothing else, all you and Google know about me is what City I live in and not much else, and it's not hard to do, and yet all these free services work just fine for me

You don't HAVE to give Google or any other company your personal information to use their products, Google has exactly as much of my private information as I CHOSE to give them which was barely nothing, as a matter of fact I could give you my real first and last name and you won't find anything other than my practically dead FB page, nothing else, all you and Google know about me is what City I live in and not much else, and it's not hard to do, and yet all these free services work just fine for me

Your masters wish to inform you they're quite pleased.

Notice how you're going down the waterfall in your own post? At first "don't have", then "barely nothing", then there's also city and then also "not much else"? I'll add from myself that there's some crap they find on their own, correlating from your IP address, from your search terms, from your usage patterns. I might add that I believe there's also some undisclosed methods of information gathering involved.

And no, of course, Google or anyone else really isn't interested in details of a single person of utter insignificance, like general populace generally is, personally.

We're just a number in statistics bigtables, a drop in the ocean. An ocean that will never overflow or dry out, indeed.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!