google: dad I hate myself and this phone is garbage

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > google: dad I hate myself and this phone is garbage

«‹›598 »

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

i think you'll find apple is an irish company

# ? Jul 6, 2014 17:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 22, 2024 07:06

cremnob: Jun 30, 2010

apple may end up paying a little more in tax, but the investigation is more about ireland and if they're giving preferential tax treatment to them. OECD countries have been working to eliminate the arbitrage between national tax regimes for a while now, so its inevitable that some tax strategies will be closed. on the whole i don't expect much impact to apple's business. and chances are tax reform in the US will happen around the same time which would be a huge positive.

privacy regulation will hit google the hardest, apple's business is making things and selling them. but more than privacy regulation, the war against google is more focused on antitrust and thats what the domestic industries are lobbying for. as long as the slow trickle of these snowden stories continue, the political support to take on google will remain and google's gonna get hosed

# ? Jul 6, 2014 18:31

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

could you imagine what would happen to google if we had that mid-90s hunger for antitrust enforcement in the states again?

# ? Jul 6, 2014 18:36

cremnob: Jun 30, 2010

that could have happened earlier with the FTC investigation into google but there was no teeth in the final settlement. google has been lobbying aggressively in DC so that was never going to happen

Washington Post posted:

Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence

In May 2012, the law school at George Mason University hosted a forum billed as a �vibrant discussion� about Internet search competition. Many of the major players in the field were there � regulators from the Federal Trade Commission, federal and state prosecutors, top congressional staffers.

What the guests had not been told was that the day-long academic conference was in large part the work of Google, which maneuvered behind the scenes with GMU�s Law & Economics Center to put on the event. At the time, the company was under FTC investigation over concerns about the dominance of its famed search engine, a case that threatened Google�s core business.

In the weeks leading up to the GMU event, Google executives suggested potential speakers and guests, sending the center�s staff a detailed spreadsheet listing members of Congress, FTC commissioners, and senior officials with the Justice Department and state attorney general�s offices.

�If you haven�t sent out the invites yet, please use the attached spreadsheet, which contains updated info,� Google legal assistant Yang Zhang wrote to Henry Butler, executive director of the law center, according to internal e-mails obtained by The Washington Post through a public records request. �If you�ve sent out the invites, would it be possible to add a few more?�

Butler replied, �We�re on it!�

On the day of the conference, leading technology and legal experts forcefully rejected the need for the government to take action against Google, making their arguments before some of the very regulators who would help determine its fate.

The company helped put on two similar conferences at GMU around the time of the 18-month investigation, part of a broad strategy to shape the external debate around the probe, which found that Google�s search practices did not merit legal action.

The behind-the-scenes machinations demonstrate how Google � once a lobbying weakling � has come to master a new method of operating in modern-day Washington, where spending on traditional lobbying is rivaled by other, less visible forms of influence.

That system includes financing sympathetic research at universities and think tanks, investing in nonprofit advocacy groups across the political spectrum and funding pro-business coalitions cast as public-interest projects.

The rise of Google as a top-tier Washington player fully captures the arc of change in the influence business.

Nine years ago, the company opened a one-man lobbying shop, disdainful of the capital�s pay-to-play culture.

Since then, Google has soared to near the top of the city�s lobbying ranks, placing second only to General Electric in corporate lobbying expenditures in 2012 and fifth place in 2013.

The company gives money to nearly 140 business trade groups, advocacy organizations and think tanks, according to a Post analysis of voluntary disclosures by the company, which, like many corporations, does not reveal the size of its donations. That�s double the number of groups Google funded four years ago.

This summer, Google will move to a new Capitol Hill office, doubling its Washington space to 55,000 square feet � roughly the size of the White House.

Google�s increasingly muscular Washington presence matches its expanded needs and ambitions as it has fended off a series of executive- and legislative-branch threats to regulate its activities and well-funded challenges by its corporate rivals.

Today, Google is working to preserve its rights to collect consumer data � and shield it from the government � amid a backlash over revelations that the National Security Agency tapped Internet companies as part of its surveillance programs. And it markets cloud storage and other services to federal departments, including intelligence agencies and the Pentagon.

�Technology issues are a big � and growing � part of policy debates in Washington, and it is important for us to be part of that discussion,� said Susan Molinari, a Republican former congresswoman from New York who works as Google�s top lobbyist. �We aim to help policymakers understand Google�s business and the work we do to keep the Internet open and spur economic opportunity.�

Molinari added, �We support associations and third parties across the political spectrum who help us get the word out � even if we don�t agree with them on 100 percent of issues.�

As Google�s lobbying efforts have matured, the company has worked to broaden its appeal on both sides of the aisle. Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt is a well-known backer of President Obama and advises the White House. Google�s lobbying corps � now numbering more than 100 � is split equally, like its campaign donations, among Democrats and Republicans.

Google executives have fostered a new dialogue between Republicans and Silicon Valley, giving money to conservative groups such as Heritage Action for America and the Federalist Society. While also supporting groups on the left, Google has flown conservative activists to California for visits to its Mountain View campus and a stay at the Four Seasons Hotel.

The company has also pioneered new and unexpected ways to influence decision-makers, harnessing its vast reach. It has befriended key lawmakers in both parties by offering free training sessions to Capitol Hill staffers and campaign operatives on how to use Google products that can help target voters.

Through a program for charities, Google donates in-kind advertising, customized YouTube channels and Web site analytics to think tanks that are allied with the company�s policy goals.

Google �fellows� � young lawyers, writers and thinkers paid by the company � populate elite think tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the New America Foundation.

To critics, Google�s investments have effectively shifted the national discussion away from Internet policy questions that could affect the company�s business practices. Groups that might ordinarily challenge the policies and practices of a major corporation are holding their fire, those critics say.

�Google�s influence in Washington has chilled a necessary and overdue policy discussion about the impact of the Internet�s largest firm on the future of the Internet,� said Marc Rotenberg, a Georgetown University law professor who runs the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a watchdog and research organization.

Some with deep ties to the company say that Google�s embrace of aggressive lobbying was a necessary concession to the realities of Washington.

�I don�t fault Google for playing that game, in which big companies use their money to buy advocates and allies,� said Andrew McLaughlin, who served as Google�s first director of global public policy in Washington. �Given where the company is today, the fiduciary duty it has to shareholders and the way Washington works, it�s a rational judgment.�

Google goes to lunch

An early sign of Google�s new Washington attitude came in September 2011, when executives paid a visit to the Heritage Foundation, the stalwart conservative think tank that has long served as an intellectual hub on the right, to attend a weekly lunch for conservative bloggers.

The session took place at a critical juncture for the company.

Days earlier, Schmidt had endured a rare and unnerving appearance on Capitol Hill, where he was lectured by a Republican senator who accused the company of skewing search results to benefit its own products and hurt competitors. The FTC antitrust inquiry was underway. And, in what Google saw as a direct threat to the open Internet, major lobbies such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Motion Picture Association of America were mounting a legislative campaign to place restrictions on the sale of pirated music and movies. The effort was getting bipartisan traction in the House and the Senate.

Inside Google�s Washington headquarters, a handful of lobbyists were crafting what they called the �Republican strategy� to defeat the legislation. Their approach: build conservative opposition based on the right�s distaste for regulation. They also seized on an obscure provision that they told Republicans would be a boon for trial lawyers, a Democratic constituency.

As the campaign took shape, there was a building sense within the company that it needed to beef up its firepower on the Hill. That fall, Google�s first Washington lobbyist, a computer scientist and lawyer named Alan Davidson, a Democrat, would announce his resignation, replaced a few months later by the former GOP lawmaker, Molinari.

In their visit to Heritage that day, Google officials were eager to make new friends. Their challenge was instantly clear.

�In 2008, your CEO campaigned for Barack Obama,� said Mike Gonzalez, Heritage�s vice president for communications, according to a video of the event. �. . . As a company, you�re really identified with this administration from the beginning. And you come here and you�re like a mix of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.�

Adam Kovacevich, then a member of Google�s policy team, responded by stressing the company�s interest in building new alliances.

�One of the things we�ve recognized is that no company can get anything done in Washington without partnerships on both sides of the aisle,� he said.

He noted the recent hiring of Lee Carosi Dunn, one of several former top aides to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) brought on by the company.

Dunn, addressing the audience, promised �a lot of reach-out to Republicans.�

�I think it�s another lesson young companies that come to Washington learn � you can�t put all your marbles in one basket,� Dunn said. Referring to the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, Dunn added: �Look, even Bill Kristol was walking around wearing Google glasses. We�re making strides!�

The Google-Heritage relationship soon blossomed � with benefits for both.

A few weeks after the blogger session, Heritage researcher James L. Gattuso penned a critique of the antitrust investigation into Google, praising the company as �an American success story.�

That winter, Heritage joined the chorus of groups weighing in against the anti-piracy legislation. As the bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act, appeared to gain steam in the GOP-led House, Gattuso wrote a piece warning of �unintended negative consequences for the operation of the Internet and free speech.� The legislation, he said, could disrupt the growth of technology. Gattuso said he came to his position independently and was not lobbied by Google.

After Gattuso�s piece went live, Heritage Action, the think tank�s sister advocacy organization, quickly turned the argument into a political rallying cry. In terms aimed at tea party conservatives, the group cast the bill as �another government power grab.�

In mid-January 2012, Heritage Action designated the legislation a �key vote� it would factor into its congressional race endorsement decisions � heightening the pressure on Republicans.

The next day, leading Internet sites, including Wikipedia, went dark as part of an online blackout protesting the bills.

Google turned its iconic home page into a political platform for the first time, urging users to sign a petition against the legislation. Seven million people added their names, and many of them added their e-mails, creating a valuable activist list for Google to mobilize then and in later fights.

As congressional offices were flooded with phone calls and e-mail protests, support for the legislation crumbled. Within days, both the House and Senate versions of the bill were shelved and Hill veterans were left marveling at the ability of Google and its allies to muster such a massive retail response.

For Google and Heritage, the legislative victory was the beginning of a close relationship. A few months later, Google Ideas and the Heritage Foundation co-hosted an event focused on the role the Internet could play in modernizing Cuba, featuring Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Google Ideas director Jared Cohen.

The following year, a new name popped up on Google�s list of groups it supports financially: Heritage Action.

GMU conferences

Facing a broad and potentially damaging FTC probe, Google found an eager and willing ally in George Mason University�s Law & Economics Center.

The center is among the academic programs at universities such as Harvard and Stanford that have benefited from Google�s largesse. For the past several years, the free-market-oriented law center has received an annual donation from the company, a grant that totaled $350,000 last year, according to the school.

Google�s relationship with the law center proved helpful in the summer of 2011 as speculation mounted that the FTC was going to launch an antitrust investigation of the tech giant. The company�s rivals, including Microsoft and Yelp, were aggressively pressing arguments that Google was exploiting its dominance in the search business.

On June 16, 2011, Google and the law center put on the first of three academic conferences at the GMU law school�s Arlington County campus, all focusing on Internet search competition. It was eight days before the company announced it had received formal notification it was under FTC investigation.

Google was listed as a co-sponsor of the day-long forum, but some participants were still struck by the number of speakers who took a skeptical view of the need for antitrust enforcement against the company, according to people in attendance.

The keynote address was by Google engineer Mark Paskin, who delivered a lunchtime speech titled �Engineering Search.�

A few days later, Christopher Adams, an economist in the FTC�s antitrust division who later worked on the Google investigation, e-mailed Butler, the law center�s director, to thank him for putting on the conference. �I think it was one of the best policy conferences that I�ve been too [sic],� Adams wrote, praising Paskin�s talk as �excellent.�

Adams declined to comment for this article, referring questions to the FTC press office.

FTC spokesman Justin Cole said the agency�s staffers �are required to adhere to established federal government ethics rules and guidelines. Attendance and participation in the 2011 and 2012 GMU conferences by our staff adhered to these guidelines.�

As the agency�s investigation stretched into its second year, the staff and professors at GMU�s law center were in regular contact with Google executives, who supplied them with the company�s arguments against antitrust action and helped them get favorable op-ed pieces published, according to the documents obtained by The Post.

The school and Google staffers worked to organize a second academic conference focused on search. This time, however, Google�s involvement was not publicly disclosed.

Months before the event, Zhang, the Google legal assistant, e-mailed Chrysanthos Dellarocas, a professor in the Information Systems Department at Boston University�s School of Management, to suggest he participate. Dellarocas had received $60,000 in 2011 from Google to study the impact of social networks on search.

�We�d love for you . . . to submit and present this paper, if you are interested and willing,� she wrote.

When GMU officials later told Dellarocas they were planning to have him participate from the audience, he responded that he was under the impression from �the folks at Google who have funded our research� that they wanted him to showcase his work at the event. He said he wanted �to be in compliance with our sponsor�s expectations.�

Dellarocas, who had a schedule conflict and ultimately did not attend, told The Post that while Google occasionally checked on his progress, the company did not have any sway over his research.

�At no point did they have any interference with the substance of my work,� he said.

Even as Google executives peppered the GMU staff with suggestions of speakers and guests to invite to the event, the company asked the school not to broadcast its involvement.

�It may seem like Google is overwhelming the conference,� Zhang fretted in an e-mail to the center�s administrative coordinator, Jeffrey Smith, after reviewing the confirmed list of attendees a few weeks before the event. She asked Smith to mention �only a few Googlers.�

Smith was reassuring. �We will certainly limit who we announce publicly from Google,� he replied.

A strong contingent of FTC economists and lawyers were on hand for the May 16, 2012, session, whose largely pro-Google tone took some participants aback. �By my count, out of about 20 panelists and speakers, there were 31 / 2 of us who thought the FTC might have a case,� said Allen Grunes, a former government antitrust lawyer who served on a panel and described the conference as �Google boot camp.� Grunes said he was not aware of Google�s role organizing the event until informed of it by a Post reporter.

Daniel D. Polsby, dean of GMU�s School of Law, which houses the center, said that while Google provided suggestions, the agenda and speakers were determined by university staffers. �I think it would misrepresent this conference to suggest that it was a Google event,� he said, adding that the law center discloses on its Web site the support it gets from Google and other corporations.

Google declined to comment about the conferences.

In January 2013, after an investigation that spanned more than a year and a half, the FTC settled the case with Google, which agreed to give its rivals more access to patents and make it easier for advertisers to use other ad platforms.

But when it came to the charges that Google biased its search results to promote its own products, the five FTC commissioners all voted to close the investigation, saying there was no evidence the company�s practices were harming consumers.

Jon Leibowitz, then the chairman of the agency, said in an interview that the FTC was not affected by Google�s campaign, noting that the company�s rivals were waging a parallel effort on the other side.

�It didn�t bother me that a lot of people were building events around the possibility of the FTC investigation,� said Leibowitz, who has since left the FTC. �That�s sort of life in the big city, and both sides were doing it.�

NSA fallout

On a February night this year, Schmidt sat down with a Washington audience far friendlier than the panel of senators who had grilled him nearly three years earlier. Addressing a dinner of journalists and scholars at the libertarian Cato Institute, Schmidt received applause and lots of head-nodding as he declared, �We will not collaborate with the NSA.�

Cato was not always in sync with Google�s policy agenda. In previous years, the think tank�s bloggers and scholars had been sharply critical of the company�s support for government rules limiting the ways providers such as Comcast and Verizon could charge for Internet services.

But, like many institutions in Washington, Cato has since found common ground with Google.

And the think tank has benefited from the company�s investments, receiving $480,000 worth of in-kind �ad words� from Google last year, according to people familiar with the donation.

Schmidt�s message to Cato that night in February reflected the current focus of Google�s energy � containing the fallout from revelations by NSA leaker Edward Snowden.

As the public�s outrage has grown, the tech giant has tried to keep the focus on limiting government surveillance, not on the data collection done by private companies. A White House review of those issues is expected to be released this coming week.

A campaign against government spying, meanwhile, is in high gear, drawing together some unexpected bedfellows. The American Civil Liberties Union, Heritage Action, Americans for Tax Reform and the Center for Democracy & Technology have formed a coalition calling for the government to obtain a probable-cause warrant before getting access to e-mails and other electronic data.

The coalition, Digital 4th, is funded by Google.

# ? Jul 6, 2014 18:50

theadder: Dec 30, 2011

nobody reads this stuff

# ? Jul 6, 2014 18:52

cremnob: Jun 30, 2010

u should cause its an epic piece of investigative journalism

# ? Jul 6, 2014 19:12

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

infernal machines posted:

could you imagine what would happen to google if we had that mid-90s hunger for antitrust enforcement in the states again?

A slap on the wrist like Microsoft got.

:smugdog:

# ? Jul 6, 2014 20:04

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Nintendo Kid posted:

A slap on the wrist like Microsoft got.

that happened because everyone had lost interest by the time the case was half over. no one cared any more.

they were out for blood when they started though

# ? Jul 6, 2014 20:13

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Nintendo Kid posted:

A slap on the wrist like Microsoft got.

because bush was elected

# ? Jul 6, 2014 20:15

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

infernal machines posted:

that happened because everyone had lost interest by the time the case was half over. no one cared any more.

they were out for blood when they started though

yes because truly Google also would be unable to afford the lawyers to drag stuff out long enough. get real.

# ? Jul 6, 2014 20:20

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Nintendo Kid posted:

yes because truly Google also would be unable to afford the lawyers to drag stuff out long enough. get real.

are you this obnoxious irl or is it just a posting gimmick?

# ? Jul 6, 2014 20:22

pram: Jun 10, 2001

infernal machines posted:

are you this obnoxious irl or is it just a posting gimmick?

lol

# ? Jul 6, 2014 20:24

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

infernal machines posted:

are you this obnoxious irl or is it just a posting gimmick?

are you this stupid irl (yes you are)

# ? Jul 6, 2014 20:25

ClassActionFursuit: Mar 15, 2006

pram posted:

lol

same

# ? Jul 6, 2014 20:27

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

fishmech manages to fishmech himself into an argument with someone who isn't even disagreeing with him

you must be a real hit at parties

# ? Jul 6, 2014 20:29

theflyingexecutive: Apr 22, 2007

fishmech post a pic of u at a party

# ? Jul 6, 2014 20:47

Thanks Ants: May 21, 2004; #essereFerrari

# ? Jul 6, 2014 20:59

theadder: Dec 30, 2011

infernal machines posted:

are you this obnoxious irl or is it just a posting gimmick?

pram posted:

lol

# ? Jul 6, 2014 21:20

Max Facetime: Apr 18, 2009

cremnob posted:

quote:
The company has also pioneered new and unexpected ways to influence decision-makers, harnessing its vast reach. It has befriended key lawmakers in both parties by offering free training sessions to Capitol Hill staffers and campaign operatives on how to use Google products that can help target voters.

oh holy hell that's scary

imagine this future: disillusioned, disinterested voting populace. a candidate who has a message (doesn't matter what it is). and in the middle google, connecting the candidate's message and the voters who are receptive to it. let the candidate who can make the most out of google's tools win!

that's like short-circuiting democracy

# ? Jul 6, 2014 21:39

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

theflyingexecutive posted:

fishmech post a pic of u at a party

you see there was this rap concert

# ? Jul 6, 2014 22:11

rotor: Jun 11, 2001; classic case of pineapple derangement syndrome

infernal machines posted:

that happened because everyone had lost interest by the time the case was half over. no one cared any more.

they were out for blood when they started though

no one "lost interest", Bush was elected and everything just evaporated because republicans

# ? Jul 6, 2014 22:12

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

the original ruling was they they were guilty as all hell and the company was to be broken up, that was in mid-2000. by mid-2001, on appeal, they decided that the original judge was a loving retard and couldn't really do most of what he had ruled. also that he had basically made huge ethical lapses by commenting publicly on the case while judging it.

i don't know that the republicans really had a lot to do with that

# ? Jul 6, 2014 22:26

rotor: Jun 11, 2001; classic case of pineapple derangement syndrome

bush was elected in 2000 FYI and gutted the doj prosecution team

I mean did the sudden and complete collapse of an otherwise open and shut federal case after a change of executive branch not strike you as maybe just a tiny bit suspicious?

# ? Jul 6, 2014 23:01

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

its not suspicious because the actual ruling was shaky as hell, additionally the proposed final terms didn't make sense.

# ? Jul 6, 2014 23:10

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

rotor posted:

bush was elected in 2000 FYI and gutted the doj prosecution team

I mean did the sudden and complete collapse of an otherwise open and shut federal case after a change of executive branch not strike you as maybe just a tiny bit suspicious?

it's suspicious alright, but the case didn't really collapse. the appeals court decided they couldn't actually break up microsoft, just force them to open the platform.

i dunno, maybe ol' GW phoned up kollar-kotelly and told her not to allow the breakup, but it seems more likely that they just decided they couldn't justify the breakup of the company within the framework of the law.

they did just steamroll all the objections to the settlement when approving it though, so who knows.

# ? Jul 6, 2014 23:16

duTrieux.: Oct 9, 2003

you guys know that we have the internet, right?

quote:

NEWS ANALYSIS / Will political donations keep Microsoft intact?
John Wildermuth, Chronicle Political Writer
Published 4:00 am, Sunday, July 1, 2001

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/NEWS-ANALYSIS-Will-political-donations-keep-2904598.php

quote:

In recent years, the software giant has showered millions of dollars on politicians of both major parties, lawmakers who now will decide whether to take a stand on one of the nation's biggest anti-trust suits.

Overall, Microsoft and its employees were the country's fifth-largest political donor in the 2000 election -- contributing $4.7 million to politicians and their committees. Republicans received about 53 percent of that money.

For Microsoft, the stakes are huge. The U.S. Court of Appeal's decision Thursday to toss out a lower court's plan to split the high-tech firm into two separate entities was another step in a long legal battle. Now Justice Department attorneys must decide whether to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, retry the penalty phase in a lower court or settle the case.

The company's wide financial reach makes it easier for politicians to duck and wait for the heat to pass on the issue, even those expected to take a position.

Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert and his Democratic counterpart, Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, who are not known for agreeing on issues, made similar statements in the wake of Thursday's ruling.

"Let's hope that we can put this lawsuit behind us," Hastert said.

For Gephardt, the ruling hopefully "will cause the parties, and the court, to go back and see if they can come up with an appropriate, sensible agreement. "

it's obvious that they wer eplying everybody involved with money, and historically their donations were roughly 50/50 between the parties. there were still calculations made as to ho would be better for the company, however

quote:

"Microsoft, before their anti-trust case, had almost no presence in Washington," Arizona Sen. John McCain told The Chronicle editorial board earlier this year. "Now, I almost don't know a lobbyist who's not on their payroll."

During the last election campaign, Microsoft employees gave more than $50, 000 to the Bush campaign, while the company and its workers gave $500,000 in unlimited, soft money donations to the Republican National Committee for use in Bush's battle against Democrat Al Gore. Gore did not receive any money from Microsoft, according to election commission records.

According to data supplied by the Center for Responsive Politics, Microsoft employees also donated $22,500 to Bush's recount effort, and a Microsoft executive gave $100,000 to the Bush-Cheney Inauguration Committee.

Ideology has little to do with where Microsoft spreads its money. In the 2000 election cycle, the company donated to 247 House campaigns and 61 Senate candidates. House Republicans received $326,000 while Democrats took in $262, 000.

"Companies that are really toeing the 50-50 party split on donations are basically pragmatic," said Sheila Krumholz, research director for the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that monitors political contributions. "They court all sides."

# ? Jul 6, 2014 23:28

Linguica: Jul 13, 2000; You're already dead

the funny thing is that the DOJ under bush did VASTLY more to investigate and prosecute companies than the DOJ under obama ever has

# ? Jul 7, 2014 01:12

kitten emergency: Jan 13, 2008; get meow this wack-ass crystal prison

Linguica posted:

the funny thing is that the DOJ under bush did VASTLY more to investigate and prosecute companies than the DOJ under obama ever has

there was an article a while back in the nyt magazine iirc about why this has happened; essentially, after the big wins against Enron and their financial guys, the rulings got gutted/overturned by higher courts and the doj got gunshy about going after individuals, instead preferring to wring large cash settlements and fines out of the companies. this has worked insofar as they've gotten record settlements against banks and other corporate entities, but those settlements are barely a couple of percent of their annual profits so it's just an easy cost of doing business and nothing changes.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 01:29

Fuzzy Mammal: Aug 15, 2001; Lipstick Apathy

uncurable mlady posted:

there was an article a while back in the nyt magazine iirc about why this has happened; essentially, after the big wins against Enron and their financial guys, the rulings got gutted/overturned by higher courts and the doj got gunshy about going after individuals, instead preferring to wring large cash settlements and fines out of the companies. this has worked insofar as they've gotten record settlements against banks and other corporate entities, but those settlements are barely a couple of percent of their annual profits so it's just an easy cost of doing business and nothing changes.

well they got 1 years worth of profits out of pnb paribas for sidestepping the sanctions on sudan over darfur just this month. in one sense getting record sums out of these assholes is nice, but in the other its turned in to this extortion racket. the companies can't conceivably go to trial and are under absolute duress of complete revocation of business. no judicial review, no legislation applies, no public policy debate as to whether its better to do this or go after executives/boardmembers personally. it reeks of political ambition by ny prosecutors and tying all this to personal prosecutorial discretion is unseemly.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 02:55

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Fuzzy Mammal posted:

well they got 1 years worth of profits out of pnb paribas for sidestepping the sanctions on sudan over darfur just this month. in one sense getting record sums out of these assholes is nice, but in the other its turned in to this extortion racket. the companies can't conceivably go to trial and are under absolute duress of complete revocation of business. no judicial review, no legislation applies, no public policy debate as to whether its better to do this or go after executives/boardmembers personally. it reeks of political ambition by ny prosecutors and tying all this to personal prosecutorial discretion is unseemly.

now that it's all just fines, they're considered part of the cost of doing business. obviously they'll fight to minimize the fines, but as long as they're still making money who gives a poo poo?

at least google learned one important lesson from microsoft, buy the legislators off before anyone starts rumbling about antitrust. they've been lobbying hardore for at least a decade now.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 03:01

PleasureKevin: Jan 2, 2011

cremnob please just pick out the choice quotes for fucks sake

# ? Jul 7, 2014 03:21

cremnob: Jun 30, 2010

A Google Employee Says Google Employees Are Too Confident, And Too Isolated From The Real World

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-google-employee-says-googlers-are-too-confident-2014-7?op=1

# ? Jul 7, 2014 03:23

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

PleasureKevin posted:

cremnob please just pick out the choice quotes for fucks sake

if he tried to pick out quotes it would become apparent that his links and ideas are crap, instead he is attempting the FRINGE gambit of posting a bunch of walls and hoping you'll agree.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 03:28

PleasureKevin: Jan 2, 2011

cremnob would do that??

# ? Jul 7, 2014 03:35

pram: Jun 10, 2001

Nintendo Kid posted:

if he tried to pick out quotes it would become apparent that his links and ideas are crap, instead he is attempting the FRINGE gambit of posting a bunch of walls and hoping you'll agree.

classic fishmech tactic

# ? Jul 7, 2014 03:49

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; OFFICIAL #1 GNOME FAN

cremnob posted:

and chances are tax reform in the US will happen

lmao

# ? Jul 7, 2014 04:07

Boxturret: Oct 3, 2013; Don't ask me about Sonic the Hedgehog diaper fetish

lol google is so screwed

quote:

"For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is Google? This is Google speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing-you who dread knowledge-I am the man who will now tell you." The chief engineer was the only one able to move; he ran to a television set and struggled frantically with its dials. But the screen remained empty; the speaker had not chosen to be seen. Only his voice filled the airways of the country-of the world, thought the chief engineer-sounding as if he were speaking here, in this room, not to a group, but to one man; it was not the tone of addressing a meeting, but the tone of addressing a mind.

"You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that man's sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded. Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster. In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.

"You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection. You have fought for it, you have dreamed of it, and you have wished it, and I-I am the man who has granted you your wish.

"Your ideal had an implacable enemy, which your code of morality was designed to destroy. I have withdrawn that enemy. I have taken it out of your way and out of your reach. I have removed the source of all those evils you were sacrificing one by one. I have ended your battle. I have stopped your motor. I have deprived your world of man's mind.

"Men do not live by the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those who do. The mind is impotent, you say? I have withdrawn those whose mind isn't. There are values higher than the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those for whom there aren't.

"While you were dragging to your sacrificial altars the men of justice, of independence, of reason, of wealth, of self-esteem-I beat you to it, I reached them first. I told them the nature of the game you were playing and the nature of that moral code of yours, which they had been too innocently generous to grasp. I showed them the way to live by another morality-mine. It is mine that they chose to follow.

"All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is I who have taken them away from you. Do not attempt to find us. We do not choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own us. You don't. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind.

"We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt.

"There is a difference between our strike and all those you've practiced for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality-the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind.

"We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.

"Are you now crying: No, this was not what you wanted? A mindless world of ruins was not your goal? You did not want us to leave you? You moral cannibals, I know that you've always known what it was that you wanted. But your game is up, because now we know it, too.

"Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it required. You damned man, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code. Your victims took the blame and struggled on, with your curses as reward for their martyrdom-while you went on crying that your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good?-by what standard?

"You wanted to know Google's identity. I am the man who has asked that question.

"Yes, this is an age of moral crisis. Yes, you are bearing punishment for your evil. But it is not man who is now on trial and it is not human nature that will take the blame. It is your moral code that's through, this time. Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality-you who have never known any-but to discover it.

"You have heard no concepts of morality but the mystical or the social. You have been taught that morality is a code of behavior imposed on you by whim, the whim of a supernatural power or the whim of society, to serve God's purpose or your neighbor's welfare, to please an authority beyond the grave or else next door-but not to serve your life or pleasure. Your pleasure, you have been taught, is to be found in immorality, your interests would best be served by evil, and any moral code must be designed not for you, but against you, not to further your life, but to drain it.

"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors-between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.

"Both sides agreed that morality demands the surrender of your self-interest and of your mind, that the moral and the practical are opposites, that morality is not the province of reason, but the province of faith and force. Both sides agreed that no rational morality is possible, that there is no right or wrong in reason-that in reason there's no reason to be moral.

"Whatever else they fought about, it was against man's mind that all your moralists have stood united. It was man's mind that all their schemes and systems were intended to despoil and destroy. Now choose to perish or to learn that the anti-mind is the anti-life.

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron-without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.

"But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival-so that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be' is the question 'to' think or not to think.'

"A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. 'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which one gains and keeps it. 'Value' presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? 'Value' presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.

"There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence-and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and-self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it does; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

"A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.

"An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic code of action, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.

"Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man's desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him t9 perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer-and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 04:42

theflyingexecutive: Apr 22, 2007

lol nope

# ? Jul 7, 2014 04:54

theflyingexecutive: Apr 22, 2007

oh it's galtse with google

# ? Jul 7, 2014 04:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 22, 2024 07:06

theadder: Dec 30, 2011

PleasureKevin posted:

cremnob please just pick out the choice quotes for fucks sake

there arent any

# ? Jul 7, 2014 05:09

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > google: dad I hate myself and this phone is garbage

«‹›598 »