No "trap" here - I just want to prove something to a friend and see how many people name the same company I am thinking of (and I don't mean stuff like the Catholic Church or the US government either but a bona fide corporation/company).
Monsanto.
Gerber Baby Food company. Appalling. :mad:
QuoteWhat is the most evil corporation in the world?
I believe Fortune has about 500 of them to choose from.
They're all equally evil.
I am disappointed that deMoney didn't name the China National Petroleum Company. :ph34r:
http://www.cnpc.com.cn/en/
Quote from: Barrister on July 11, 2012, 10:11:43 AM
I am disappointed that deMoney didn't name the China National Petroleum Company. :ph34r:
http://www.cnpc.com.cn/en/
It's in the Top 10. I felt it was obvious.
Apple.
Come on now, what does Monsanto do that's worse than making babies into food? :huh:
sigh... I reject the premise of this question simply because it doesn't define it's terms
- what is a corporation?
- what is evil?
- does evil lie in the intent or the outcome?
I can be almost certain that any company that gets mentioned here is certainly a world leader in it's field and definitively not most evil in the world.
The corporations that own and operate slaves, deliberately break any law limiting their activities and own countries or are governments don't have names or logos or are listed on the Dow Jones. But certainly the list of the most evil corporations in the world must include PLA, Kim Jong Un and Assc., SLORC, Al-Qaeda, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps etc.etc.
Comparing these truly evil groups with a company that makes high tech products that reduce pestcide use, antibiotic use and helps farmers achieve higher and better quality yields is just silly.
Ignorant and uneducated Hippies don't get to tell me who is evil and who is not.
Any company that you know the name of and is a publicly listed company in a western country is infinitely less evil the "Achmed and Mustaffas Slave Emporium of Khartoum".
People's Republic of Chiner.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 11, 2012, 10:15:45 AM
Come on now, what does Monsanto do that's worse than making babies into food? :huh:
It then sues you for eating the food.
Kind of silly to ascribe metaphysical qualities to a piece of paper on file in Wilmington.
Viking has a pretty good point as well. We in the West have the luxury of being outraged by such acts of wickedness like efforts to minimze tax liability and regulatory burdens. Not that we should stand up and applaud but on the "evil" scale it is more like mini-Me.
Quote from: Viking on July 11, 2012, 10:22:27 AM
Any company that you know the name of and is a publicly listed company in a western country is infinitely less evil the "Achmed and Mustaffas Slave Emporium of Khartoum".
What about companies that routinely do business with Achmed and Mustaffa? Like CNPC? :ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on July 11, 2012, 10:28:38 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 11, 2012, 10:22:27 AM
Any company that you know the name of and is a publicly listed company in a western country is infinitely less evil the "Achmed and Mustaffas Slave Emporium of Khartoum".
What about companies that routinely do business with Achmed and Mustaffa? Like CNPC? :ph34r:
CNPC doesn't do business with Achmed and Mustaffa, they import their own slave labour from China :contract:
CNPC is not a publicly listed western company and not as bad as Achmed and Mustaffa.
Though it is important to remember that CNOOC and CPAC are two different companies. CNOOC to the best of my knowledge is a well run reputable company. The reason to be disgusted by CPAC is not what they are doing in Alberta but what they are doing in Sudan and Burma (and China of course).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2012, 10:28:06 AM
Kind of silly to ascribe metaphysical qualities to a piece of paper on file in Wilmington.
Viking has a pretty good point as well. We in the West have the luxury of being outraged by such acts of wickedness like efforts to minimze tax liability and regulatory burdens. Not that we should stand up and applaud but on the "evil" scale it is more like mini-Me.
It is important to remember that the people who for and at the great multinational corporations are almost exclusively people like you and me who live in the western culture sphere (even those who did not start in it) and they share our general values and need to be able to go home at the end of their work day and look their social worker wife, grade school son who just learned about pollution and high school daughter who volunteers for the WWF and Amnesty in the eye and not be hated.
What is lacking is the evil bit. The world abounds with people cutting corners making bad decisions that they thought would turn out right. Even the Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford seem to have made bad decisions and compounded the harm by making more bad ones to try and fix the problems created by the first ones. LexCorp and Omni Consumer Products don't exist in reality.
I am familiar with CNOOC, but not CPAC. Googling comes up with varous hits, none of which appear relevant.
And Martinus didn't limit his question to public companies or western companies, which is why the company I am nominating is neither.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2012, 10:28:06 AM
Viking has a pretty good point as well.
He's also a mindless automaton of the petroleum-industrial complex, so his opinion is suspect and most likely corporate policy.
Quote from: Barrister on July 11, 2012, 10:47:19 AM
I am familiar with CNOOC, but not CPAC. Googling comes up with varous hits, none of which appear relevant.
And Martinus didn't limit his question to public companies or western companies, which is why the company I am nominating is neither.
CPAC was supposed to be typed CNPC :blush:
IG Farben
Quote from: Zanza on July 11, 2012, 11:16:56 AM
IG Farben
AGFA, BASF, Bayer and Hoechst?
is /= was
The legal entity still exists. ;) But you are right, it's evil days are over.
Quote from: Viking on July 11, 2012, 10:22:27 AM
sigh... I reject the premise of this question simply because it doesn't define it's terms
- what is a corporation?
- what is evil?
- does evil lie in the intent or the outcome?
I can be almost certain that any company that gets mentioned here is certainly a world leader in it's field and definitively not most evil in the world.
The corporations that own and operate slaves, deliberately break any law limiting their activities and own countries or are governments don't have names or logos or are listed on the Dow Jones. But certainly the list of the most evil corporations in the world must include PLA, Kim Jong Un and Assc., SLORC, Al-Qaeda, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps etc.etc.
Comparing these truly evil groups with a company that makes high tech products that reduce pestcide use, antibiotic use and helps farmers achieve higher and better quality yields is just silly.
Ignorant and uneducated Hippies don't get to tell me who is evil and who is not.
Any company that you know the name of and is a publicly listed company in a western country is infinitely less evil the "Achmed and Mustaffas Slave Emporium of Khartoum".
Meh. Twisting the laws and society of the civilized world to suit their evil ends is a different kind of evil, but it's still evil.
Besides, the slave emporium doesn't affect white folks. It's more evil to do evil to civilized people than it is to enslave the lower races of the Third World.
Foxtons.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2012, 10:28:06 AM
Kind of silly to ascribe metaphysical qualities to a piece of paper on file in Wilmington.
Viking has a pretty good point as well. We in the West have the luxury of being outraged by such acts of wickedness like efforts to minimze tax liability and regulatory burdens. Not that we should stand up and applaud but on the "evil" scale it is more like mini-Me.
We ascribe these metaphysical qualities to other people, and corporations are legally people. I was going to say Union Carbide. You know, for killing those thousands of people.
I'm kinda surprised nobody's pointed out Chiquita Brands. Having a whole class of dysfunctional governments named for your business is certainly a notch in the Evil Belt. :contract:
I will admit, though, that Monsanto was the first company to pop into my head. That shit's a blight on three continents.
Most incompetent? Any American power company. That one on the east coast especially.
Most evil... Maybe Target with the way it treats its workers. Or Meijers. Nice stores, shitty management. Notice I didn't put Wally World there. ALL HAIL WAL MART.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 11, 2012, 02:23:35 PM
Most incompetent? Any American power company. That one on the east coast especially.
Amen, yo.
How can anyone fuck up being granted a state-sanctioned monopoly? I don't know, but they all seem to do it.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2012, 01:17:16 PM
We ascribe these metaphysical qualities to other people, and corporations are legally people.
:glare:
What has Monsanto done? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2012, 02:46:57 PM
What has Monsanto done? :unsure:
[scarequote] Franken-Foods! [/scarequote]
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2012, 02:46:57 PM
What has Monsanto done? :unsure:
They gave Clarence Thomas a job. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2012, 02:46:57 PM
What has Monsanto done? :unsure:
Seriously?
Any of the cross polination lawsuits is a good example.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2012, 02:46:57 PM
What has Monsanto done? :unsure:
Got the luddites riled up.
Patenting a gene is enough.
Monsanto gives a lot of money to charity. Therefore, not evil. :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 11, 2012, 04:47:25 PM
Monsanto gives a lot of money to charity. Therefore, not evil. :)
Just because they give some of their ill-gotten gains on charity doesn't absolve them of evil.
Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
Patenting a gene is enough.
Everybody's doing it.
Quote from: Martinus on July 11, 2012, 10:04:32 AM
No "trap" here - I just want to prove something to a friend and see how many people name the same company I am thinking of (and I don't mean stuff like the Catholic Church or the US government either but a bona fide corporation/company).
What's the name of your law firm?
Boleslaw & Boleslaw.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2012, 02:30:19 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 11, 2012, 02:23:35 PM
Most incompetent? Any American power company. That one on the east coast especially.
Amen, yo.
FPL is a very well-run company. <_<
Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
Patenting a gene is enough.
Monsanto's opponents are not opposed to gene patenting. They just think that the people who did all the work should not get any of the benefit of the work.
Quote from: Viking on July 11, 2012, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
Patenting a gene is enough.
Monsanto's opponents are not opposed to gene patenting. They just think that the people who did all the work should not get any of the benefit of the work.
I'm their opponent, and I am opposed to gene patenting.
Indeed, the only problem I have with them is gene patenting.
Quote from: Barrister on July 11, 2012, 03:09:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2012, 02:46:57 PM
What has Monsanto done? :unsure:
[scarequote] Franken-Foods! [/scarequote]
Yeah, that's much worse then killing thousands of people in India.
The Corporation you've never heard of. :ph34r:
The Pinkertons is also a good one, but I don't know if they are still even in business.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2012, 08:04:07 PM
The Pinkertons is also a good one, but I don't know if they are still even in business.
You related to McClellan, and still upset about those inflated Confederate troop estimates?
Actually, I assume that you're referring to the use of Pinkerton agents in putting down labor unrest in the late 19th-early 20th century.
And yeah, I believe that the Pinkerton agency is still in business, though I don't care enough to actually check.
Yes.
http://www.pinkertons.com/ (http://www.pinkertons.com/)
The municipal corporation of Chicago, Illinois.
Disney.
Quote from: Barrister on July 11, 2012, 03:09:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2012, 02:46:57 PM
What has Monsanto done? :unsure:
[scarequote] Franken-Foods! [/scarequote]
And toxic waste dumping, bits of child labor etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
Quote from: dps on July 11, 2012, 08:24:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2012, 08:04:07 PM
The Pinkertons is also a good one, but I don't know if they are still even in business.
You related to McClellan, and still upset about those inflated Confederate troop estimates?
Actually, I assume that you're referring to the use of Pinkerton agents in putting down labor unrest in the late 19th-early 20th century.
And yeah, I believe that the Pinkerton agency is still in business, though I don't care enough to actually check.
If by "Putting down", you mean murdering people then yes.
Quote from: Syt on July 11, 2012, 10:11:27 PM
And toxic waste dumping
40 years ago. :mellow:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2012, 10:14:45 PM
Quote from: dps on July 11, 2012, 08:24:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2012, 08:04:07 PM
The Pinkertons is also a good one, but I don't know if they are still even in business.
You related to McClellan, and still upset about those inflated Confederate troop estimates?
Actually, I assume that you're referring to the use of Pinkerton agents in putting down labor unrest in the late 19th-early 20th century.
And yeah, I believe that the Pinkerton agency is still in business, though I don't care enough to actually check.
If by "Putting down", you mean murdering people then yes.
Meh. It was war.
What is the most evil corporation in the world?
Paradox, hands down.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 11, 2012, 06:24:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 11, 2012, 02:30:19 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 11, 2012, 02:23:35 PM
Most incompetent? Any American power company. That one on the east coast especially.
Amen, yo.
FPL is a very well-run company. <_<
Yes, they are. Why the State of Maryland wouldn't allow them to buy us in '97, but let the next Enron do it instead, is still baffling.
Meh, I don't care anymore. I want my Obama Bucks.
I don't know if Exxon is the most evil of the non-state big oil companies, or just the most honest. They would unambiguously trigger some people's "evil" meter because they are deliberately anti-gay rights. Mobil had HR policies in place that allowed gay employees to put their SO on their company health insurance and make them beneficiaries of various other corporate benefits. When they merged to form XOM, Exxon's management explicitly struck that part of the employee benefits out.
But when it comes to things like environmental disasters, BP really did put a ton of effort into trying to save face and that $20bn relief fund is pretty legitimate too. When Exxon-Valdez happened Exxon was mostly concerned with trying to argue they deserved no blame, contesting any legal efforts to make them pay any penalties or reparations (for decades now), and basically hand waving it away as a fluke caused by a drunk.
Exxon had some legit arguments with some of that, but BP took the more correct approach--big bad fuckup, put hat in hand and try to make it right.
Exxon also doesn't even really try to give that fig leaf to green energy most other big multinational energy companies are doing, they basically openly say "fossil fuels are the future and we want to drill even more natural gas and oil than we already have, we're good for 50-60 years by far until we should even think about green energy--and by the way, we even believe in anthropogenic global warming but we think scientists should be figuring out how to cope with it not trying to get in the way of burning more fossil fuels."
I genuinely don't think XOM deserves to be considered "most evil" but they really do have PR that just makes them come off like they're saying "we know we're considered the villain and we kinda dig it." But I guess that is part of the benefits of being a big energy company who sells a fungible commodity and has virtually no direct exposure to retail customers--you don't actually have to give a shit what ordinary people think of your company.
With Monsanto if your problems are "franken foods" you're an idiot worse than evolution deniers or young earth creationists, those fears are not based in science.
If your problem is how they've gone after farmers for using Monsanto seeds when the farmers really just had some innocent cross pollination happen then I'd argue it's a mixed bag. If Monsanto is really going around suing all kinds of farmers just because of some accidental cross pollination, I agree that is kind of shitty. But I'm not 100% sure that actually happens. I've read several news articles where people really want that to be what happens, but the few actual cases (that actually get to court) that I've read about the farmers were unambiguously in the wrong.
In one of them the farmer tried to say it was cross pollination but there was damning evidence he had some Monsanto seeds he was accumulating year to year in direct violation of the license agreement he signed. You can argue the license agreement is bullshit (and it seems that way to many, why can't he save his seeds from season to season?), but if Monsanto has a legal license agreement in which you pay periodically and do not have the right to use those seeds after license expiration and you sign that document then violate it, I have a lot less sympathy for you than an innocent victim of cross-pollination.
Another case I read, the farmer knew his plants had been cross-pollinated with Monsanto seed, and then there was damning evidence that he intentionally nurtured and cultivated those plants and used them to create his own ever-growing supply of Monsanto's product. By the time he got caught he had basically converted huge portions of his crop to using Monsanto's product against patent law.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 11, 2012, 11:07:16 PM
Another case I read, the farmer knew his plants had been cross-pollinated with Monsanto seed, and then there was damning evidence that he intentionally nurtured and cultivated those plants and used them to create his own ever-growing supply of Monsanto's product. By the time he got caught he had basically converted huge portions of his crop to using Monsanto's product against patent law.
Gene patenting is in and off itself evil and immoral and every company that practices it should burn.
I don't necessarily agree with that, but even if I did to me it's kinda like the spitball. Was always a dirty thing, but before it was explicitly ruled against the rules I can't really negatively judge someone for taking advantage. Nor do I judge the players who were "grandfathered" in and continued to use it for a few years afterward. If you aren't pushing the rules you aren't in the game.
IMO if you have a problem with patenting genes, then your problem is with the courts and/or the legislature, not individual companies.
Quote from: dps on July 11, 2012, 11:23:20 PM
IMO if you have a problem with patenting genes, then your problem is with the courts and/or the legislature, not individual companies.
Who do you think bribes the courts and the legislature? Besides, even if an evil thing is legal, it can still be evil. The idea that the law and morality are one and the same is one of the great mental plagues of our time. I blame the gays.
Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2012, 11:29:37 PM
Quote from: dps on July 11, 2012, 11:23:20 PM
IMO if you have a problem with patenting genes, then your problem is with the courts and/or the legislature, not individual companies.
Who do you think bribes the courts and the legislature? Besides, even if an evil thing is legal, it can still be evil. The idea that the law and morality are one and the same is one of the great mental plagues of our time. I blame the gays.
Exactly (except the gays part). Only because something is legal, it does not necessarily mean it is ethical. It's funny how so many "Christians" have such an utterly immoral outlook on the world as dps.
In 1860 he would have been defending slave traders (including those who would dump the cargo into the sea when it "goes bad" or prices drop) as good, moral Christian folk. After all, they are just using the legal means available to them. This is why I hate worshippers of the dead Jew on a stick.
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 12:56:23 AM
Exactly (except the gays part). Only because something is legal, it does not necessarily mean it is ethical. It's funny how so many "Christians" have such an utterly immoral outlook on the world as dps.
In 1860 he would have been defending slave traders (including those who would dump the cargo into the sea when it "goes bad" or prices drop) as good, moral Christian folk. After all, they are just using the legal means available to them. This is why I hate worshippers of the dead Jew on a stick.
The international slave trade was banned in the US in 1807.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 12, 2012, 01:08:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 12:56:23 AM
Exactly (except the gays part). Only because something is legal, it does not necessarily mean it is ethical. It's funny how so many "Christians" have such an utterly immoral outlook on the world as dps.
In 1860 he would have been defending slave traders (including those who would dump the cargo into the sea when it "goes bad" or prices drop) as good, moral Christian folk. After all, they are just using the legal means available to them. This is why I hate worshippers of the dead Jew on a stick.
The international slave trade was banned in the US in 1807.
So 1806. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 12:56:23 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2012, 11:29:37 PM
Quote from: dps on July 11, 2012, 11:23:20 PM
IMO if you have a problem with patenting genes, then your problem is with the courts and/or the legislature, not individual companies.
Who do you think bribes the courts and the legislature? Besides, even if an evil thing is legal, it can still be evil. The idea that the law and morality are one and the same is one of the great mental plagues of our time. I blame the gays.
Exactly (except the gays part). Only because something is legal, it does not necessarily mean it is ethical. It's funny how so many "Christians" have such an utterly immoral outlook on the world as dps.
In 1860 he would have been defending slave traders (including those who would dump the cargo into the sea when it "goes bad" or prices drop) as good, moral Christian folk. After all, they are just using the legal means available to them. This is why I hate worshippers of the dead Jew on a stick.
You do realize that Evangelical Christians were the driving force behind the American abolition movement don't you? Without there support slavery would have lasted at least another 50 years.
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 12:56:23 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2012, 11:29:37 PM
Quote from: dps on July 11, 2012, 11:23:20 PM
IMO if you have a problem with patenting genes, then your problem is with the courts and/or the legislature, not individual companies.
Who do you think bribes the courts and the legislature? Besides, even if an evil thing is legal, it can still be evil. The idea that the law and morality are one and the same is one of the great mental plagues of our time. I blame the gays.
Exactly (except the gays part). Only because something is legal, it does not necessarily mean it is ethical. It's funny how so many "Christians" have such an utterly immoral outlook on the world as dps.
In 1860 he would have been defending slave traders (including those who would dump the cargo into the sea when it "goes bad" or prices drop) as good, moral Christian folk. After all, they are just using the legal means available to them. This is why I hate worshippers of the dead Jew on a stick.
I'm perfectly capable of making the distinction between what is legal, and what is moral. And I can be even more nuance than that--there is stuff I think is immoral that I still think should be legal. Take hate speech. It's immoral, but IMO it shouldn't be illegal (I think I can honestly say that I've been pretty consistant in my posts over the years in supporting very few limits on free speech).
OTOH, you're right, I do have trouble seeing patenting genes as EVIL
per se, but I do have a lot of reservations about it being something that should be legal. Then again, if I could make one change in our intellectual property laws, I'd start by scaling back the length of time that copywrites stay in effect, not with patents.
Quote from: jimmy olsenYou do realize that Evangelical Christians were the driving force behind the American abolition movement don't you? Without there support slavery would have lasted at least another 50 years.
In fairness to Marty, that was generally only true of Evangelical Christians in the north. Those in the south tended to defend slavery as being sanctioned by the Bible (ignoring that slavery in Biblical times had some notable differences from the form practiced in 18th and 19th Century America). I guess I should note that the Evangelicals in the north were important in getting rid of slavery in their part of the country. But then Marty seems to have some trouble realizing that Catholics and Protestants aren't the same, so I hardly expect him to be up on the differences between northern and southern Evangelical Christians prior to 1860.
OK, if you schmucks are opposed to gene patenting what incentive can there be to do any research into using genes to create drought resistant corn or vitamin d containing rice or any other genetically modified organism?
Patents only last 10 years. How are inventors and scientists supposed to profit from their work if once they have done the work any schmuck can use that gene themselves? Most opponents have argued that the genes should not belong the company that discovers them and makes them viable for use, but rather the local aboriginal population or local state.
Do I really have to go into a first principles argument for patents?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2012, 01:21:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 12:56:23 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2012, 11:29:37 PM
Quote from: dps on July 11, 2012, 11:23:20 PM
IMO if you have a problem with patenting genes, then your problem is with the courts and/or the legislature, not individual companies.
Who do you think bribes the courts and the legislature? Besides, even if an evil thing is legal, it can still be evil. The idea that the law and morality are one and the same is one of the great mental plagues of our time. I blame the gays.
Exactly (except the gays part). Only because something is legal, it does not necessarily mean it is ethical. It's funny how so many "Christians" have such an utterly immoral outlook on the world as dps.
In 1860 he would have been defending slave traders (including those who would dump the cargo into the sea when it "goes bad" or prices drop) as good, moral Christian folk. After all, they are just using the legal means available to them. This is why I hate worshippers of the dead Jew on a stick.
You do realize that Evangelical Christians were the driving force behind the American abolition movement don't you? Without there support slavery would have lasted at least another 50 years.
How's that relevant to the point I was making? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 04:08:26 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2012, 01:21:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 12:56:23 AM
Exactly (except the gays part). Only because something is legal, it does not necessarily mean it is ethical. It's funny how so many "Christians" have such an utterly immoral outlook on the world as dps.
In 1860 he would have been defending slave traders (including those who would dump the cargo into the sea when it "goes bad" or prices drop) as good, moral Christian folk. After all, they are just using the legal means available to them. This is why I hate worshippers of the dead Jew on a stick.
You do realize that Evangelical Christians were the driving force behind the American abolition movement don't you? Without there support slavery would have lasted at least another 50 years.
How's that relevant to the point I was making? :huh:
BTW, Tim, it's "their support" :P
Quote from: Caliga on July 11, 2012, 04:47:25 PM
Monsanto gives a lot of money to charity. Therefore, not evil. :)
Indulgences? Quite evil. :contract:
The cross-pollination suits are the big kicker, but I've heard rumblings of getting govs to abuse eminent domain on their behalf, as well. Those fuckers want their land, and they'll do whatever they can to get it.
Quote from: Viking on July 12, 2012, 03:55:25 AM
OK, if you schmucks are opposed to gene patenting what incentive can there be to do any research into using genes to create drought resistant corn or vitamin d containing rice or any other genetically modified organism?
Patents only last 10 years. How are inventors and scientists supposed to profit from their work if once they have done the work any schmuck can use that gene themselves? Most opponents have argued that the genes should not belong the company that discovers them and makes them viable for use, but rather the local aboriginal population or local state.
Do I really have to go into a first principles argument for patents?
I don't care, but then again I don't need any of those things.
A lifeform isn't a widget, and that's pretty much the end of the discussion.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 12, 2012, 08:24:12 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 11, 2012, 04:47:25 PM
Monsanto gives a lot of money to charity. Therefore, not evil. :)
Indulgences? Quite evil. :contract:
The cross-pollination suits are the big kicker, but I've heard rumblings of getting govs to abuse eminent domain on their behalf, as well. Those fuckers want their land, and they'll do whatever they can to get it.
Then your anger should be directed at shopping mall developers before Monsanto.
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2012, 08:26:19 AM
I don't care, but then again I don't need any of those things.
A lifeform isn't a widget, and that's pretty much the end of the discussion.
you eat food, drink water, use medicines and pay taxes. You need all those things.
Quote from: dps on July 12, 2012, 09:08:01 AM
Then your anger should be directed at shopping mall developers before Monsanto.
Oh, redevelopment companies are absolutely the devil. As an institution? Probably more evil than Monsanto. Each individual company has a fraction of the reach that Monsanto does, though. And besides, like I said, Chiquita's arguably worse than both: combining the worst qualities of both redevelopers and agro-industrial behemoths.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 12, 2012, 09:20:39 AM
Quote from: dps on July 12, 2012, 09:08:01 AM
Then your anger should be directed at shopping mall developers before Monsanto.
Oh, redevelopment companies are absolutely the devil. As an institution? Probably more evil than Monsanto. Each individual company has a fraction of the reach that Monsanto does, though. And besides, like I said, Chiquita's arguably worse than both: combining the worst qualities of both redevelopers and agro-industrial behemoths.
That's like calling out Union Carbide or IG Farben though - the evils of the United Fruit Company are long in the past.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 09:24:54 AM
That's like calling out Union Carbide or IG Farben though - the evils of the United Fruit Company Central Intelligence Agency are long in the past.
That's like calling out BASF for their gas production in WW1. YOU ALMOND-FLAVORED MOTHERFUCKERS
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 12:56:23 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2012, 11:29:37 PM
Quote from: dps on July 11, 2012, 11:23:20 PM
IMO if you have a problem with patenting genes, then your problem is with the courts and/or the legislature, not individual companies.
Who do you think bribes the courts and the legislature? Besides, even if an evil thing is legal, it can still be evil. The idea that the law and morality are one and the same is one of the great mental plagues of our time. I blame the gays.
Exactly (except the gays part). Only because something is legal, it does not necessarily mean it is ethical. It's funny how so many "Christians" have such an utterly immoral outlook on the world as dps.
In 1860 he would have been defending slave traders (including those who would dump the cargo into the sea when it "goes bad" or prices drop) as good, moral Christian folk. After all, they are just using the legal means available to them. This is why I hate worshippers of the dead Jew on a stick.
Please. talk about overblown rhetoric.
Gene patents may be bad policy, but it's not like private companies are being given the right to charge people for being born.
The question concerns methods or products that are derived from particular isolated gene sequences, where the claimant claims to have discovered some novel application for the sequence. The consequence if the answer is yes is that the claimant receives a temporary monopoly for maketing the particular method or product claimed.
The moral stakes here are not quite the same as the transatlantic slave trade.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 12, 2012, 09:46:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 12:56:23 AM
This is why I hate worshippers of the dead Jew on a stick.
Please. talk about overblown rhetoric.
What, Marti and overblown rhetoric? Say it ain't so!
Coming immediately to mind I'd have to say apple.
Though of course there are doubtless a bunch of non-household name companies that are worse.
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2012, 09:52:26 AM
Coming immediately to mind I'd have to say apple.
Though of course there are doubtless a bunch of non-household name companies that are worse.
Funnily enough, Apple itself doesn't have that bad a track record. Foxconn's a different story, but they're a vendor, and Apple finally laid down the law with them around the end of last year/earlier this year.
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2012, 09:52:26 AM
Though of course there are doubtless a bunch of non-household name companies that are worse.
Like Otto mentioned with Exxon Mobil as an example, there are plenty of companies that are not directly responsible to or possess exposure to a tangible customer base, and therefore don't give a royal rat fuck what you think about them.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Google.
I mean they aren't all THAT evil, but they are evil, and they get bonus points for having the gall to have their unofficial motto of "Don't be evil".
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 10:13:52 AM
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Google.
I mean they aren't all THAT evil, but they are evil, and they get bonus points for having the gall to have their unofficial motto of "Don't be evil".
:huh: Elaborate
Well their entire business model is based on stealing the content of everyone else on the web and then putting their own advertising on top of it.
Well that's certainly one way to spin it.
Nobody mentioned Haliburton yet?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.voltairenet.org%2FIMG%2Fjpg%2Fes-cheney390.jpg&hash=e10b3af5931e47b5e48eace17b1935b72f49eade)
Excellent...
I'm amused by all the gene-modified food alarmists.
Quote from: Maximus on July 12, 2012, 10:28:07 AM
Well that's certainly one way to spin it.
Am I wrong?
Google generates virtually no content (some small exceptions - Google Maps / Street View is google-generated), yet sells billions of dollars of advertising for linking to other people's content.
Beeb: that sounds more like a description of HuffPo.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: Maximus on July 12, 2012, 10:28:07 AM
Well that's certainly one way to spin it.
Am I wrong?
Google generates virtually no content (some small exceptions - Google Maps / Street View is google-generated), yet sells billions of dollars of advertising for linking to other people's content.
Yeah, it's like a delivery company. I never considered UPS evil because the stuff they give me isn't actually from them.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2012, 10:57:37 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: Maximus on July 12, 2012, 10:28:07 AM
Well that's certainly one way to spin it.
Am I wrong?
Google generates virtually no content (some small exceptions - Google Maps / Street View is google-generated), yet sells billions of dollars of advertising for linking to other people's content.
Yeah, it's like a delivery company. I never considered UPS evil because the stuff they give me isn't actually from them.
That's a Marti-esque bad analogy.
The problem isn't that google "dlivers" content to you - it's that they don't pay the content creators anything, yet profit by selling ads.
I second Google. Facebook is trying, but they aren't quite as evil as Google yet.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
The problem isn't that google "dlivers" content to you - it's that they don't pay the content creators anything, yet profit by selling ads.
Do they really? I thought they just gave you a link with the first couple lines of an article.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2012, 11:30:38 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
The problem isn't that google "dlivers" content to you - it's that they don't pay the content creators anything, yet profit by selling ads.
Do they really? I thought they just gave you a link with the first couple lines of an article.
Yes, that's exactly what they do. And it's enormously profitable for them.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
That's a Marti-esque bad analogy.
The problem isn't that google "dlivers" content to you - it's that they don't pay the content creators anything, yet profit by selling ads.
I don't know - from old business models, companies like Google would be charging content creators to have their content listed for other's to find (think telephone book). Instead, the content creators basically get free advertising and the only payment is that they let Google make a little profit off of them.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 11:38:49 AM
Yes, that's exactly what they do. And it's enormously profitable for them.
As well it should be, it's an amazing search engine.
But who the hell types in "Romney Baptizes Famous Dead Jew" into Google, gets a bunch of links about Romney baptizing dead Jews and stops there? Presumably they want to read an article on it. So they click a link and the content provider gets a hit and their own ad exposure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2012, 11:45:32 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 11:38:49 AM
Yes, that's exactly what they do. And it's enormously profitable for them.
As well it should be, it's an amazing search engine.
But who the hell types in "Romney Baptizes Famous Dead Jew" into Google, gets a bunch of links about Romney baptizing dead Jews and stops there? Presumably they want to read an article on it. So they click a link and the content provider gets a hit and their own ad exposure.
So then you go, read the one article on, say, the NYT, then go back to google for your next query. NYT gets one ad hit, while google, based on the aggregation of millions of different sources, gets many more.
Ask Brazen how the web model is working for media companies these days.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
That's a Marti-esque bad analogy.
The problem isn't that google "dlivers" content to you - it's that they don't pay the content creators anything, yet profit by selling ads.
So the content creators would prefer if Google didn't link to them?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 12, 2012, 11:29:57 AM
I second Google. Facebook is trying, but they aren't quite as evil as Google yet.
I find Google useful, unlike Facebook and Twitter.
Facebook is amazing if you are trying to find somebody. Family members, old friends, and all that. It was suprisingly hard to do before.
What frunk said Beeb. It's not a zero sum game. If I go straight to CNN to read about baptizing Jews or link through Google it makes no difference to CNN's bottom line.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2012, 10:37:09 AM
I'm amused by all the gene-modified food alarmists.
I don't have anything against genetically engineered food.
Quote from: frunk on July 12, 2012, 11:52:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
That's a Marti-esque bad analogy.
The problem isn't that google "dlivers" content to you - it's that they don't pay the content creators anything, yet profit by selling ads.
So the content creators would prefer if Google didn't link to them?
In Germany, the news media push for legislation to charge anyone who links to a news story and offers a quote (short quotes suffice) and makes money from it (a blog with banner ads would qualify) and means to move against those who don't pay their share.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2012, 11:58:45 AM
What frunk said Beeb. It's not a zero sum game. If I go straight to CNN to read about baptizing Jews or link through Google it makes no difference to CNN's bottom line.
It actually might. Going to CNN through google helps CNN's own search rankings on Google and other search sites which increases their exposure on search engines and might translate into more ad revenue for CNN itself. Going directly to CNN by typing the url into your address bar doesn't help with exposure on search.
What about Fox? Rupert Murdoch makes for a good James Bond villain.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2012, 11:45:32 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 11:38:49 AM
Yes, that's exactly what they do. And it's enormously profitable for them.
As well it should be, it's an amazing search engine.
But who the hell types in "Romney Baptizes Famous Dead Jew" into Google, gets a bunch of links about Romney baptizing dead Jews and stops there? Presumably they want to read an article on it. So they click a link and the content provider gets a hit and their own ad exposure.
Marketing teams, research companies and web developers will type anything and everything into search and not continue on to the article. They're looking for who ranks where on search, how many results their phrase returned, who is paying to use AdWords (sponsored search), etc.
I'm trying hard to think what makes Google evil and I'm not coming up with much. They bungled a lot of censorship policies with relation to China, and the Android deployment model has some critical failures (mostly due to phone companies' desire for platform control). Beyond that, having advertising on search results isn't even a 0.1 on the evil scale. The site they are linking to can also have advertising, which if they were any good at could be tailored to the content even more closely than Google's. The difference is most companies aren't even close to as good at it as Google.
It's like restaurants getting pissed at taxi cabs for bringing them customers.
Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2012, 11:57:05 AM
Facebook is amazing if you are trying to find somebody. Family members, old friends, and all that. It was suprisingly hard to do before.
There's usually a reason why we don't want to be found.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2012, 12:24:06 PM
It's like restaurants getting pissed at taxi cabs for bringing them customers.
They'd be fine with it if the taxis didn't have ads on them.
Quote from: frunk on July 12, 2012, 12:27:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2012, 12:24:06 PM
It's like restaurants getting pissed at taxi cabs for bringing them customers.
They'd be fine with it if the taxis didn't have ads on them.
:lol:
Quote from: frunk on July 12, 2012, 11:52:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
That's a Marti-esque bad analogy.
The problem isn't that google "dlivers" content to you - it's that they don't pay the content creators anything, yet profit by selling ads.
So the content creators would prefer if Google didn't link to them?
Content creators would prefer if people would go directly to them.
If you want the days news that you would start by going to, say, cnn.com and look for your news, generating multiple page views (not just one) and thus a lot more ad revenue.
Look - although I called it "stealing", google isn't actually commiting a theft and nothing they are doing is illegal. But they are A: generating enormous profits off the work of others, and B: collecting vast amounts of data about its users. It has placed itself as an intermediary between consumers and content creators.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 12:37:26 PM
If you want the days news that you would start by going to, say, cnn.com and look for your news, generating multiple page views (not just one) and thus a lot more ad revenue.
If you want the day's news, you're not going to go to Google and type "the day's news."
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 12:09:33 PM
What about Fox? Rupert Murdoch makes for a good James Bond villain.
He was, in Tomorrow Never Dies.
Quote from: PRC on July 12, 2012, 12:08:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2012, 11:58:45 AM
What frunk said Beeb. It's not a zero sum game. If I go straight to CNN to read about baptizing Jews or link through Google it makes no difference to CNN's bottom line.
It actually might. Going to CNN through google helps CNN's own search rankings on Google and other search sites which increases their exposure on search engines and might translate into more ad revenue for CNN itself. Going directly to CNN by typing the url into your address bar doesn't help with exposure on search.
:wacko:
Going to CNN through Google helps CNN because it increases CNN's exposure on google. That's completely circular.
If you go to a CNN story though google you generate precisely one page view for CNN. CNN has no idea what other things you were looking for and therefore can not generate any kind of targeted ad (which therefore means its ads get very poor clickthroughs).
Google, on the other hand, knows all of your other searches (plus various other details about you if you're using gmail, google+ and the like). It generates lots of pageviews, and its ads get better clickthroughs. And all without paying one cent for any content.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2012, 12:39:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 12:37:26 PM
If you want the days news that you would start by going to, say, cnn.com and look for your news, generating multiple page views (not just one) and thus a lot more ad revenue.
If you want the day's news, you're not going to go to Google and type "the day's news."
Sure you are.
news.google.com
Gives me all of today's news stories.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2012, 12:26:03 PM
There's usually a reason why we don't want to be found.
If there is a reason then do not set up a public facebook profile :P
I use Ad Blocker so neither CNN nor Google is making a whole lot off me. :menace:
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 12:37:26 PM
Content creators would prefer if people would go directly to them.
If you want the days news that you would start by going to, say, cnn.com and look for your news, generating multiple page views (not just one) and thus a lot more ad revenue.
Look - although I called it "stealing", google isn't actually commiting a theft and nothing they are doing is illegal. But they are A: generating enormous profits off the work of others, and B: collecting vast amounts of data about its users. It has placed itself as an intermediary between consumers and content creators.
Content creators also have access to a great deal of search data that Google makes public, including all of the search terms that Google users used to get to their site. None of that is kept from the content creators, who are free to use it as well.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 10:20:02 AM
Well their entire business model is based on stealing the content of everyone else on the web and then putting their own advertising on top of it.
#firstworldproblem
What about apple? Their new business model is about suing everybody for copyright fraud. It's like they are the new microsoft.
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 12:09:33 PM
What about Fox? Rupert Murdoch makes for a good James Bond villain.
That trope is already exhausted.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thebondjourney.com%2Fimages%2Fjonathan-pryce-elliot-carver-04.jpg&hash=00a353b332fb40ad0e42bfacd90609e59ca5acc8)
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 12, 2012, 01:01:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 10:20:02 AM
Well their entire business model is based on stealing the content of everyone else on the web and then putting their own advertising on top of it.
#firstworldproblem
What about apple? Their new business model is about suing everybody for copyright fraud. It's like they are the new microsoft.
Patents, not copyright.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 12:44:13 PM
Sure you are.
news.google.com
Gives me all of today's news stories.
Google gets one hit. Each link gets a hit. Versus someone going straight to cnn and cnn getting a hit for each story.
It's not Google that's skimming cnn's ad revenue, it's other content providers. And through Google, cnn is doing the same to it's competitors.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 12:43:02 PM
:wacko:
Going to CNN through Google helps CNN because it increases CNN's exposure on google. That's completely circular.
If you go to a CNN story though google you generate precisely one page view for CNN. CNN has no idea what other things you were looking for and therefore can not generate any kind of targeted ad (which therefore means its ads get very poor clickthroughs).
Google, on the other hand, knows all of your other searches (plus various other details about you if you're using gmail, google+ and the like). It generates lots of pageviews, and its ads get better clickthroughs. And all without paying one cent for any content.
Going to CNN through google means CNN will index better on google. Google's index algorithm will reward the page and the domain that gets clicks on its search results. That's better for CNN because it increases the visibility of its other content through search. It may be circular but that's a part of google's indexing algorithm.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 12:44:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2012, 12:39:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 12:37:26 PM
If you want the days news that you would start by going to, say, cnn.com and look for your news, generating multiple page views (not just one) and thus a lot more ad revenue.
If you want the day's news, you're not going to go to Google and type "the day's news."
Sure you are.
news.google.com
Gives me all of today's news stories.
And when you click on it - it takes you to the site of the content provider.
Besides, many to most of the content linked to on google does not have the presence to draw consumers solely on its own. They would definitely suffer if there was not an index where consumers could then stumble upon their sites.
That's why I liked my telephone book analogy. Sure, businesses probably would have liked if consumers just visited them or called them directly, without needing to pay money to be listed in the phonebook, but without many had difficult actually getting that consumer traffic. I don't see why google is evil then for not charging business for a similar service.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2012, 10:57:37 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: Maximus on July 12, 2012, 10:28:07 AM
Well that's certainly one way to spin it.
Am I wrong?
Google generates virtually no content (some small exceptions - Google Maps / Street View is google-generated), yet sells billions of dollars of advertising for linking to other people's content.
Yeah, it's like a delivery company. I never considered UPS evil because the stuff they give me isn't actually from them.
That's a Marti-esque bad analogy.
The problem isn't that google "dlivers" content to you - it's that they don't pay the content creators anything, yet profit by selling ads.
It's fairly close to them delivering someone elses content to you. They are bring you there rather then bring it to you. But since you aren't actually going anywhere the difference is minimal.
:Embarrass:
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 01:03:33 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 12, 2012, 01:01:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 10:20:02 AM
Well their entire business model is based on stealing the content of everyone else on the web and then putting their own advertising on top of it.
#firstworldproblem
What about apple? Their new business model is about suing everybody for copyright fraud. It's like they are the new microsoft.
Patents, not copyright.
Right. Still appaling.
Apple apparently recently dropped out of some environmentally friendly products rating group.
Also, Trafigura.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: Maximus on July 12, 2012, 10:28:07 AM
Well that's certainly one way to spin it.
Am I wrong?
Google generates virtually no content (some small exceptions - Google Maps / Street View is google-generated), yet sells billions of dollars of advertising for linking to other people's content.
They provide a service, collecting the staggeringly enormous amount of data out there and cataloging it so those who want to find it can do so. They don't even charge the users. Instead they provide another service to pay for it.
They pay their employees quite well. That money has to come from somewhere. I'm a bit surprised that you would be the one condemning a company for running a successful business delivering a highly demanded service.
Quote from: Maximus on July 12, 2012, 02:13:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: Maximus on July 12, 2012, 10:28:07 AM
Well that's certainly one way to spin it.
Am I wrong?
Google generates virtually no content (some small exceptions - Google Maps / Street View is google-generated), yet sells billions of dollars of advertising for linking to other people's content.
They provide a service, collecting the staggeringly enormous amount of data out there and cataloging it so those who want to find it can do so. They don't even charge the users. Instead they provide another service to pay for it.
They pay their employees quite well. That money has to come from somewhere. I'm a bit surprised that you would be the one condemning a company for running a successful business delivering a highly demanded service.
Actually I condemn them for trying to portray themselves as "Not being evil".
I never said they didn't provide a service. They clearly do. But it's a service based upon the works of others, and for which Google provides nothing.
And you should also know that my father is a long-time newspaper man - but one who has been struggling with a lot of contract and term jobs, in large part because newspapers have been losing tons of money in recent years.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 02:27:45 PM
Quote from: Maximus on July 12, 2012, 02:13:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: Maximus on July 12, 2012, 10:28:07 AM
Well that's certainly one way to spin it.
Am I wrong?
Google generates virtually no content (some small exceptions - Google Maps / Street View is google-generated), yet sells billions of dollars of advertising for linking to other people's content.
They provide a service, collecting the staggeringly enormous amount of data out there and cataloging it so those who want to find it can do so. They don't even charge the users. Instead they provide another service to pay for it.
They pay their employees quite well. That money has to come from somewhere. I'm a bit surprised that you would be the one condemning a company for running a successful business delivering a highly demanded service.
Actually I condemn them for trying to portray themselves as "Not being evil".
I never said they didn't provide a service. They clearly do. But it's a service based upon the works of others, and for which Google provides nothing.
And you should also know that my father is a long-time newspaper man - but one who has been struggling with a lot of contract and term jobs, in large part because newspapers have been losing tons of money in recent years.
I disagree that Google provides nothing to the content creators. If the sites are showing up in search then Google is providing them exposure and awareness for free. Those content creators can also learn to "game" Google to get even better results from organic search (that's part of my day job). Google also provides things like advanced analytics and other development tools that are extrememly helpful to those content creators and lot of that, such as Google Analytics, is free.
Your old man should start blogging! I'm serious.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 12, 2012, 02:05:32 PM
Also, Trafigura.
What makes them worse then others in the industry?
How on earth would my old man make any money blogging though? :huh: It seems like blogging is a part of this same cycle of
1. Provide content for free to the internet
2. ...
3. Profit!
That has caught up the entire industry.
Plus, although my dad was a sportswriter and sports columnist for years and years, for the last 20 years he's been primarily an editor / page layout person.
Painting Google as simply a delivery platform is really, really broad strokes. Hosting? Very-large computing? You mentioned that they do, in fact, generate content via Google Earth and Google Maps- are you aware that that's a huge bulk of their income? Getting into a squabble over the charge for the generated content is why Apple's dropping Google Maps, BTW.
Even if Google wasn't there newspapers would be dying out. The trend had started well before Google became the preeminent search engine.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 02:50:43 PM
How on earth would my old man make any money blogging though? :huh: It seems like blogging is a part of this same cycle of
1. Provide content for free to the internet
2. ...
3. Profit!
That has caught up the entire industry.
Plus, although my dad was a sportswriter and sports columnist for years and years, for the last 20 years he's been primarily an editor / page layout person.
Yeah, that particular gripe is a definite concern. I don't see where you get Google being evil, though, since AdSense is one of their ways of inserting something into that "..." for content providers.
I feel like the only ones who've really grasped the Internet as a daily income generator are the gaming companies, and even they're still fine-tuning to come up with a reasonable junction of nature, amount, and price of microtransaction content.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 02:50:43 PM
How on earth would my old man make any money blogging though? :huh: It seems like blogging is a part of this same cycle of
1. Provide content for free to the internet
2. ...
3. Profit!
That has caught up the entire industry.
Plus, although my dad was a sportswriter and sports columnist for years and years, for the last 20 years he's been primarily an editor / page layout person.
He can freelance blog for sites like http://www.arcticicehockey.com/ (Winnipeg Jet's blog and part of SBNation) which have Google's display network ads on the site and those generate revenue in the form of click-through commissions for the blogger.
He can also setup his own blog and talk about whatever he wants... display those Google sponsored ads on his own site and collect the commissions on the clickthroughs, that's how bloggers make money. It will be slow to start but if his content is good, if it has articles of interest that people want to read then the blog will become popular and that will help with his own exposure and being able to get more freelance jobs through traditional mediums.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 12, 2012, 02:52:12 PM
Painting Google as simply a delivery platform is really, really broad strokes. Hosting? Very-large computing? You mentioned that they do, in fact, generate content via Google Earth and Google Maps- are you aware that that's a huge bulk of their income? Getting into a squabble over the charge for the generated content is why Apple's dropping Google Maps, BTW.
In the discussion in Germany (ZOMG GOOGLE LINKS TO NEWS STORIES FOR FREE) it's been mentioned that the German Google news service is far from profitable.
Quote from: PRC on July 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 02:50:43 PM
How on earth would my old man make any money blogging though? :huh: It seems like blogging is a part of this same cycle of
1. Provide content for free to the internet
2. ...
3. Profit!
That has caught up the entire industry.
Plus, although my dad was a sportswriter and sports columnist for years and years, for the last 20 years he's been primarily an editor / page layout person.
He can freelance blog for sites like http://www.arcticicehockey.com/ (Winnipeg Jet's blog and part of SBNation) which have Google's display network ads on the site and those generate revenue in the form of click-through commissions for the blogger.
He can also setup his own blog and talk about whatever he wants... display those Google sponsored ads on his own site and collect the commissions on the clickthroughs, that's how bloggers make money. It will be slow to start but if his content is good, if it has articles of interest that people want to read then the blog will become popular and that will help with his own exposure and being able to get more freelance jobs through traditional mediums.
All of those kinds of sites though seem to have contributors who are wannabe sports writers, or people trying to break into the business.
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 03:27:39 PM
Quote from: PRC on July 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
He can freelance blog for sites like http://www.arcticicehockey.com/ (Winnipeg Jet's blog and part of SBNation) which have Google's display network ads on the site and those generate revenue in the form of click-through commissions for the blogger.
He can also setup his own blog and talk about whatever he wants... display those Google sponsored ads on his own site and collect the commissions on the clickthroughs, that's how bloggers make money. It will be slow to start but if his content is good, if it has articles of interest that people want to read then the blog will become popular and that will help with his own exposure and being able to get more freelance jobs through traditional mediums.
All of those kinds of sites though seem to have contributors who are wannabe sports writers, or people trying to break into the business.
Yeah, so with your old mans background he should be a pro and do well right from the start!
Quote from: PRC on July 12, 2012, 03:34:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 03:27:39 PM
Quote from: PRC on July 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
He can freelance blog for sites like http://www.arcticicehockey.com/ (Winnipeg Jet's blog and part of SBNation) which have Google's display network ads on the site and those generate revenue in the form of click-through commissions for the blogger.
He can also setup his own blog and talk about whatever he wants... display those Google sponsored ads on his own site and collect the commissions on the clickthroughs, that's how bloggers make money. It will be slow to start but if his content is good, if it has articles of interest that people want to read then the blog will become popular and that will help with his own exposure and being able to get more freelance jobs through traditional mediums.
All of those kinds of sites though seem to have contributors who are wannabe sports writers, or people trying to break into the business.
Yeah, so with your old mans background he should be a pro and do well right from the start!
Also on the Canucks version of that blog a few writers have been picked up as regulars with the local newspapers, the Vancouver Sun and the Province as well as Yahoo's Puck Daddy.
Quote from: PRC on July 12, 2012, 03:35:28 PM
Quote from: PRC on July 12, 2012, 03:34:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 03:27:39 PM
Quote from: PRC on July 12, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
He can freelance blog for sites like http://www.arcticicehockey.com/ (Winnipeg Jet's blog and part of SBNation) which have Google's display network ads on the site and those generate revenue in the form of click-through commissions for the blogger.
He can also setup his own blog and talk about whatever he wants... display those Google sponsored ads on his own site and collect the commissions on the clickthroughs, that's how bloggers make money. It will be slow to start but if his content is good, if it has articles of interest that people want to read then the blog will become popular and that will help with his own exposure and being able to get more freelance jobs through traditional mediums.
All of those kinds of sites though seem to have contributors who are wannabe sports writers, or people trying to break into the business.
Yeah, so with your old mans background he should be a pro and do well right from the start!
Also on the Canucks version of that blog a few writers have been picked up as regulars with the local newspapers, the Vancouver Sun and the Province as well as Yahoo's Puck Daddy.
But look at it from his perspective. He's been in the industry 40 years. He doesn't feel like he should have to do that kind of stuff. The local newspapers all know exactly who he is. Hell he is the one who first hired the guy who is now the Jets beat writer for the Free Press.
Besides, as I pointed out, with the exception of doing some ongoing work for the Canadian Curling Association, he's been primarily an editor for 20 years.
But maybe I'm wrong - can you make significant coin on those kind of google ads? Got any numbers you can throw my way?
Yeah, if your Dad is no longer really writing then blogging may not transition into regular freelance articles with newspapers, but if he has a particular hobby or interest that he knows really well it might literally pay for him to take up blogging about it. I recall you mentioning he had a B&B? That would be a great place to start, "how to run a B&B" blog I could see doing well.
How much revenue all depends on how good the content is. Amateur sites with really good content that fill a niche (for example: http://ana-white.com/ a stay at home mom who is a do-it-yourself furniture restorer / creator) can make excellent coin from ad revenue. I don't know what she makes off her ads but my would guess it would be well over $5,000 a month. She is a great case study in how to make money from blogging. Because her site has really great free content and is a hit with women - she has advertising companies lining up to get their ads on her site.
Going back to a "how to run a B&B" blog for your Dad... hoteliers, B&B operators and others would pay to see their ads on a site like that but the content has to be good. Good content equals lots of visitors and lots of visitors equal advertisers wanting to pay you to promote them.