They forgot to mention that they really appreciate that taxes are always discussed in terms of "income".
The truly rich have no pesky income - that's for the servants. They just have property and expenses, which their accountants, lawyers and politicians keep safe.
Hints: tax-free foundations are great, intellectual property is tax-free.
(There's a reason putative class-betrayer Gore Vidal spoke of "our owners", referring to the U.S. aristocracy.)
used her father's address to enroll her two daughters in a better public school outside of their neighborhood. After spending nine days behind bars charged with grand theft, the single mother was convicted of two felony counts
Slightly insane, eh, what?
I can think of a few people roaming around foot-loose and fancy-free, and even pocketing scores of millions of dollars, who should be doing that.
Depends on what you want to be. An artist or craftsman needs a good apprenticeship, or perhaps to build a good portfolio, and can easily blow away academic credentials.
But an engineer should have the chops one gets from doing the academic obstacle course.
"A method is described for tracking information about the activities of users of a social networking system while on another domain." – Facebook Patent application dated September 22, 2011
Creeps and liars.
Google must be shooting for just sincerely creepy. Competitive advantage there.
I disagree, I'd wager most people that use a google account already use it only for gmail, as there's little interest in logging in to their other services.
my point is that most people dont create a different google account for each google service they use. They use one account, for however many google services they do use.
my sister uses her account for gmail and picasa and for uploading to youtube.
my dad uses his account for gmail, picasa, and android market.
my mom uses just gmail
as, or if, people add Google services, they use their one account. The only normal person use case for creating more accounts is for having two accounts with one service, i.e. 2 gmails, 2 picasas, 2 youtubes, etc.
my point is that most people dont create a different google account for each google service they use. They use one account, for however many google services they do use.
Not me. (Anecdata, selection bias and all that.)
I used to be able to bounce between youtube and gmail with different accounts, in the same browser session. Then one day I was greeted with the Universal Google Session. Now I need to use different browsers.
However, given Google's direction, I'm looking to replace my Google services usage with non-Google alternatives, so this will be a short-lived problem for me.
No point using separate IDs for different services. Google will still tie them together. Here's a little story (that might scare you).
A few months ago, my brother bought an android phone. He synced contacts with his gmail account. And when I looked at my info on his contact list, I saw that gmail had associated my name with a couple of accounts I had made as a kid and haven't used in half a decade. How they did that, I don't know.
In any case, that aside, I really don't mind that they are profiling me as long as the intent remains good. I like it that the ads are tailored for me. I like that youtube suggests videos that I might be interested in. I like it that I don't have to sign in over and over again to login to different services. These are all features to me and a majority of the internet using public.
If you don't want to be profiled you should consider pooling money and creating your own email service with like-minded people, use diaspora/anonymous boards for networking etc. Avoiding google is do-able. It just requires more resources.
I find that most people who are complaining are neither willing to give up a bit of privacy nor are they willing to pay more or work harder to protect their privacy. You can't eat your cake and have it too!
If you don't want to be profiled you should consider pooling money and creating your own email service with like-minded people, use diaspora/anonymous boards for networking etc. Avoiding google is do-able. It just requires more resources.
Absolutely. I may go back to running my own mail server, or keep sing Google for apps while dropping YouTube in favor of Vimeo, and moving to Diaspora and skipping g+.
I find that most people who are complaining are neither willing to give up a bit of privacy nor are they willing to pay more or work harder to protect their privacy. You can't eat your cake and have it too!
Yes; for example I noticed that some Occupy<CityOrPlace> groups are on the one the hand complaining about companies violating privacy and using personal data for economic fodder while at the same time happily using Facebook to as their "homepage".
At some point principles have to trump convenience.
My point is that 'most people' I refer to didn't create different google accounts, they created a singular gmail account. You seem to be focused on 'active user' accounts, the google account with gmail is now 'contagious' and is automatically signing you up for stuff that you never signed up for before: e.g. youtube.
GMail users are the biggest users of "other" Google services around, because of the integrated login. Because of the "contagion" working over time.
Most normal people like that behavior. I had all these Google contacts on my computer, now they're on my phone when I bought it and signed in. Or I made Google checkout for my phone, now I can rent movies on Youtube. Or buy a book I saw in search results. And my phtos from my phone go right to Picasa. Where I can use the Google checkout to buy photo prints of them.
That your Android account is your gmail account is your youtube account is a selling point of Google services to a normal person.
I heard that Android thing is doing pretty well, and it is the single most heavily account integrated thing Google has ever done. The contagion seems to be working so far as "active user" accounts go.
You are mistaken in thinking you have to be logged in to be a user. I'm still using youtube, just not logged in.
I don't have a problem with an integrated login which is what they've had up until now, and which your family have been using successfully. I do have a problem with an automatically integrated login - one of the reasons I avoided google+, and indeed the Android. It's the automatic behaviour that I labelled 'contagious'. All these convenience functions that you bring up sound fantastic if you can opt in and opt out at will, however it's the automatic nature of this 'contagion' that is annoying.
Don't try to speak for a 'normal person', it's a poor choice of words in any case. Privacy conscious people are not abnormal. I know plenty of people for whom having their photos go from their phone to picasa automatically would be an absolute nightmare, and they have very normal privacy concerns.
I'm sure you do not subscribe to "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide".
I posted the link to the comments because they're even better than the piece, which was not bad (and is linked at the top of the comments page).
The one titled "Too many developers" may be right: [...] My John Harvey-Jones fix: bin 90% of the programmers (pay them a million each), keep a small team to maintain and slowly extend the core, and leave it at that. After all, once your house is finished you don't keep the builders and architects on retainer, but you might hire in a decorator once in a while. [...]
Also, three slots down: I easily manage my facebook content by never reading it.
One score and twice four years ago (more or less) some guys brought forth a few modems, that they screwed to computers, which then conceived Usenet in liberty, dedicated to the proposition that on the net nobody knows you're an ass (unless you make it painfully clear yourself).
Thus came B1FF@PSUVM to roam the land of newsgroups, whence comp.sources circulated programs, rec.sf-lovers hosted epic flame-wars apropos nothing much, and alt.sex (ably assisted by alt.sex.anal) told tales titillating the prurient interest of the readership.
Since then we have learned nothing much, which is why Google is climbing up its own ass chasing the social butterfly, and there are pundits like Shirky milking this tired teat over and over.
A no-prize to whoever brings back the kill-file that was feature #1 in Usenet readers. Not to mention decent threading with color-coding of postings read, but I suppose that's too much to ask in today's morass of PHP BBs with twitching avatars and stupefying 'emoji'. Ah well.
The truly rich have no pesky income - that's for the servants. They just have property and expenses, which their accountants, lawyers and politicians keep safe.
Hints: tax-free foundations are great, intellectual property is tax-free.
(There's a reason putative class-betrayer Gore Vidal spoke of "our owners", referring to the U.S. aristocracy.)