You're working under the assumption that consumers will demand them...I'm kind of thinking that's a negative. I think most of them are probably more interested in having a tablet or smartphone instead. When it comes to me getting cars, I don't really give a shit about infotainment systems as I've always found my smartphone to be much more flexible. Music? Pandora. GPS? Google Maps. How would CarPlay improve anything? Maybe, *maybe* for a self-driving car, but beyond what I mentioned, I don't really mess with any controls while I'm driving.

It is "just playing the game." The question is, whose side are you on? Google in many cases has to lobby just to be allowed to do anything at all. Intuit in this case is lobbying to keep the tax system unintuitive.

You mean the same IRS that would automatically audit tea party groups even if they weren't suspected of doing anything wrong?

Ugh...I don't think I'm getting my point across correctly. This is pretty much the opposite of a "why, no true scottsman would..." argument. You're just picking things you want to identify as right wing, and if that person meets any of those you just dismiss them entirely.

Why not just look at each individual viewpoint based on its own merits/demerits?

I'm pro second amendment, free market capitalist, and anti affirmative action. Does that make me right wing?

I'm for the legalization of drugs, gambling, prostitution, and I'm atheist. Does that make me left wing?

Here's a better idea: Let's talk about these issues individually rather than say left or right.

No, I'm justifying lobbying based on a lot of things. People react so stupidly to perceived problems that they theorize will happen, and it often costs money (not bribe money, but lobbying takes time, and you know how time relates to money.)

It isn't just politicians; it's voters as well. For example, I'm pro immigration, but against illegal immigration. I suggested ending birthright citizenship in an old slashdot post. Somebody replies to me saying "oh but that would cause second class citizens and it would be so awful." Really? Well, in numerous countries in Europe they don't have birthright citizenship, yet they don't have those perceived problems. I make similar arguments in favor of gambling, drugs, prostitution, and others, where other countries have legalized them to REDUCE violent crime, (German red light districts and the autobahn aren't causing social problems there) yet politicians and indeed many voters have this fear about them anyways (and no, it's not just the religious ones, the secular ones fear it as well, but for different reasons.)

Liz Figueroa was overreacting to Google's advertising model. This reaction came mainly out of misunderstanding what google is doing (they actually had people making claims in the popular media about things they were doing that they weren't actually doing) in addition to having her own vision about how the world "ought to be" and wanting to force it on everybody else. Also you seem to have a misunderstanding of your own - companies like them have ALWAYS had the ability to look over your emails if they wanted to - there never has been anything stopping them from doing so. Microsoft demonstrated that recently. Google just has a machine look for words and show ads -- your emails are safe from Mrs. Kravits.

So being for gay rights and anti-creationism is right wing? What, seriously? I must have missed the memo.

Really dude, get out of that stupid left vs right world you live in. There is a lot more to the world than your one bit (literally) political viewpoint. I'm being very sincere here, it's a stupid paradigm that I would really like to see go away.

See my other post as for why I chose the gmail issue and not any of the other ones (in a nutshell, because the article is about Google.)

Tell that to labor unions who demand you pay dues to the union boss or else say goodbye to your job. Why? Because there's a fine line between what some consider extortion and some don't. You can also look at taxation as extortion. Again, depends who you ask.

Screw that; in order to be fair that would amount to requiring every ad in the world be a full page ad. That's total bullshit. The terms and conditions are fully presented to you, it's up to you to choose not to read them.

Uh...WHAT? 2005 was a full 7 years after I already had cable. My uncle who lives in a very VERY rural farm area also had DSL back in 2003. Where do you live, Afghanistan?

Actually you're quite wrong there. The first public facing implementation of what is today called Ajax was Gmail. The Microsoft variant you refer to is missing the J portion, and used the much maligned ActiveX, and therefore was not Ajax by definition. Besides, when the term was coined, it was referenced specifically to techniques google used. Not only that, but gmail was an internal google service in 2001, and actually began development much earlier.

Oh and by the way, I picked that particular one for no reason other than TFA is about Google and only Google, and so I wanted to give an example of what Google has had to deal with. When you're a company as big as Google. spending money on lobbying is very much obligatory. If some smaller outfit did gmail, Liz Figueroa wouldn't have even noticed.

Comcast/Netflix has zero to do with Google. Net neutrality does, but it isn't even remotely specific to them. Gmail is.

I don't really think her being a Democrat had anything to do with it, nor is Cato right wing.

I'd also cite this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It was almost entirely Democrats attacking that game, so is that also a right wing campaign to bring down Democrats? Or is it just a bunch of retarded politicians being...retarded? I mean you can see how stupid their reaction is to this game, so why are they reacting this strongly to it? It may or may not be about wanting their palms greased, but nevertheless money must be spent on lobbying efforts just to keep their game on store shelves (alternatively they may face e.g. bankruptcy, loss of jobs, etc.)

Though to be honest I think you're probably just an apologist for Democrats as if they can't do anything wrong.

So in that case I'll just calm your heart with the following words: Go Obama!

No it's not that. The best thing I can see to compare it to is 2:30 into this video: (watch til at least 4:00)

http://www.vice.com/the-vice-g...

Basically you have to pay them money in order to be allowed to do things that are already ethical, perhaps even legal to do. If you already can do these things, then you often have to put up lobbying efforts to make sure that you can continue doing them.

For example, recall how after Google introduced gmail, California senator Liz Figueroa wanted to ban it. In that case, it took some heavy lobbying in order to keep gmail legal.

Personally, it would have pissed me off if they would have banned it; look at how gmail has revolutionized webmail. Before gmail they used to suck horribly, the good ones gave you a whopping 10MB of storage and each action you took required an entire page reload, making them slow as fuck. Yet gmail managed to be faster than native desktop clients in everything it did, including things that native clients were horridly slow at, such as searching.

But you know what? Often the US government (or even some state governments, like California) don't give a shit about whether or not anything is good and useful. The only thing they care about is how well their palms are greased.

I cut my own hair with a shaver I spent $20 on 5 years ago.

That doesn't make any sense either, I've seen some events and charities that are meant to sponsor "women and minorities" only. This basically means anything except white males.

Honestly it doesn't bother me. Perhaps even a bit flattering; basically what they're saying is I'm the only one who has thick enough skin to not need any special considerations or handicaps.

I didn't say you did. Honestly dude you're reading way too far into my posts, just like you do with everybody else. First you attack me (accuse me of being a shill) and then you accuse me of saying things I didn't even say. I'm not bothering with the rest of your post, just go ahead and fuck yourself already.

And you're trying to bullshit me by saying I'm giving you a choice. I'm not giving you any choice, and I'm not denying you any choice either. What I'm saying is that we can't live on 100% organic. Analogies to harnessing zero point energy come to mind; it's just not going to happen. We also can't live on 0% GMO either; if we end that, then countries which have ended famine in recent decades will have to go back to famine. That is a fact.

We've already outgrown what the planet's resources are capable of giving us. That doesn't mean we have to shrink or even stop growing, it just means we have to adapt. GMO is part of that adaptation.

Looking at your post history, you're quite an asshole to everybody you talk to. There are many categories of assholes, and I can already tell that you're in the grade A category. You also seem to think that you have all of life's problems already sorted out, and that everybody simply needs to place their nose in your ass to reach paradise. I'm going to tell you right now though that you're quite wrong, and in fact people following you is a surefire way for their lives to become shitty.

You also seem to consider Europe to be "the rest of the world" and yet also somehow better than the rest of the world. Typical self centered asshole. Next time you start a world war I'll make sure the occupiers say hello.

High chance you're treating it the wrong way, either that or your expectations are wrong. If you're used to homeopathy, then your solution is always a straight-forward "like for like" but modern medicine doesn't work that way. For example, you aren't going to treat a viral cold with medicine designed to treat a bacterial cold, such as antibiotics. Even if you do use the correct medication, it isn't going to fix the problem over night either; it may even take days (often times the infection will be gone but the symptoms persist, which is mainly just a side effect of the way your immune system works, in which case you can use medication to merely treat the symptoms, because the underlying cause is already gone.)

A more accurate term would be "apologetic" rather than shill. No, I'm not being paid. It's hard to speak up for yourself when you are the one being attacked. Try being a white guy speaking against these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

As bullshit as it is, you can't speak against it if you're white. Why? Well because you have a conflict of interest, therefore most people will automatically be less willing to believe you. Sometimes, for this reason some groups need an outside advocate. Monsanto has been demonized by the organic movement. Have they done some things wrong? Yeah. And so have we all. But this campaign against them is unjustified if not downright evil. In that case, here I am, an outside advocate who has no conflict of interest.

Also, your statement about food just being improperly distributed is only a result of the green revolution. Without it, and without GMO foods, there simply aren't enough resources available to feed the whole world on organic food. It's just not going to happen. You can thank companies like Monsanto for that one, but instead you want them burned at the stake for what you perceive as witchcraft.