Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2012 22:22 UTC
Google Interesting, if not inherently flawed, article by Farhad Manjoo. "Honan might be right that Google has violated its own definition of evil, but doesn't it matter that every one of its rivals also routinely violates Google's definition of evil?" I say flawed, because I value promises more than anything. Google has done things recently that break their initial promise. That sucks - there's no way around it. I do love Gruber's take, though: "It's not that Google is evil. It's that they're hypocrites. That's the difference between Google and its competitors." In other words, it's perfectly fine to be an evil scumbag company, as long as you're not claiming you're not. That's a rather... Warped view on morality.
Thread beginning with comment 512959
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
the good, old investment companies...
by dionicio on Thu 5th Apr 2012 19:57 UTC
Member since:

Let's not forget that
the first investment companies
had the purpose
of going abroad and bring back
taxes, treasures, slaves
and the heads of
security 'annoyances'.

It's not the commercial society figure
which is wrong.

It is the dependence of States
-unable to self-organize and predate
on lesser and more open figures-
for taxes and financing,
which is wrong.

In the best scenarios
we have 'co-managed' States.

In the worst ones
we have 'puppet' States.

Edited 2012-04-05 20:12 UTC

Reply Score: 1