Comment Re:I was going to suggest... (Score 1) 108
Why not? Do you have a payment network that can process in excess of a 100 billion transactions in a year?
Why not? Do you have a payment network that can process in excess of a 100 billion transactions in a year?
Clearly not. The 3.2 billion VISA cards in use and the 111 billion global transactions worth $10.2 trillion that were processed by VisaNet last year is because no one uses a Visa card.
And how is what is happening here any different? Is Google being fined, executives being improsoned or anything of that sort? Oh wait, no all that is happening is a couple of news stories criticizing their dishonesty.
Weak trollig is weak. .
Ummm, less ethical than Google?
Yes, but that isn’t some endorsement to say that Google is a beacon of ethics. Far from it.
I find that hard to believe. At least the DoD is honest about what they do: kill the enemies of the US.
Honesty is not the same as being ethical. If a person is honest that they beat up young children to steal their candy does that make them ethical?
Google's entire business model is based on lying to their product while they strip-mine their privacy.
Because the DoD has never lied or done things that have invaded the privacy of US citizens? LOL. Methinks you need to brush up on PRISM, NSLs, etc.
And yet reading posts to this story shows that some people still think Google is some magical different type of corporation.
What specific military secrets have been spilled?
Awww poor snowflake. Do you need a safe space to cry in?
Do you hear people complaining about other US corps involved with the US military?
Yes, I have. Ever heard of this thing called the “military-industrial complex?” People have been complaining about it for going on 60 years.
Have you ever worked for the DoD as a contractor? I have and this nonsense about Google only doing work for the DoD that is “ethical” is laughable. The military-industrial conplex is about the least ethical group of people you can find.
But trust Google because they’re going to be “ethical.” Why do people still believe a single word Google says? They’re a two-faced corporation just like the rest of them.
Right... fair point. But to expect a company to be responsible for the actions of a third party is unreasonable, so "enforce" really just means what Google will allow its employees to do as part of a contract.
It’s a perfectly reasonable expectation from a company claiming to be ethical. Google could always just tell the DoD ‘No’ and walk awayif they were really being as ethical ad they claim.
What exactly these guidelines will stipulate isn't clear, but Google says they will include a ban on the use of artificial intelligence in weaponry.
Even if Google follows this, how is it going to prevent the DoD from weaponizing what Google develops? Google is clearly not naive so this all reeks of a public show for something they’ll never be able to enforce.
And the person is double fail since that RFC even states it’s not a “standard of any kind.”
It is a regrettably well spread misconception that publication as an
RFC provides some level of recognition. It does not, or at least not
any more than the publication in a regular journal. In fact, each
RFC has a status, relative to its relation with the Internet
standardization process: Informational, Experimental, or Standards
Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, Internet Standard), or
Historic. This status is reproduced on the first page of the RFC
itself, and is also documented in the periodic "Internet Official
Protocols Standards" RFC (STD 1).
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
Now let’s go to the I’m a Teapot RFC:
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
So basically you’re wrong as can be.
No it’s not. Also it was part of a yearly joke RFC.
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
