I wonder if the headline writer knows
that "glister" is an alternate form of "clister" or "clyster", which is an archaic word for an enema.
32 publicly visible posts • joined 14 May 2013
It's primarily a wrist-mounted auxiliary touchscreen for your phone, with the ability to do some basic fitness data logging and run local apps, including but not exclusively watch faces. If you're already using a wrist-mounted fitness tracker and an iPhone, it's cool because it gives the same or better capabilities, plus a lot more. If you're already using an iPhone but not a fitness tracker, it's cool because it lets you do most of what you do with your phone without taking your phone out of your pocket, plus the fitness tracking capability. If you don't have an iPhone or don't like wearing bracelets, it's useless.
Visible and conspicuously flush, hence frequent targets of solicitation for funds with which to maintain the enormous homeless population which San Francisco's soft-hearted citizens choose to foster.
Soft-hearted and soft-headed, too, in my opinion -- I can understand the impulse behind picking up a stray kitten; I've done it myself, often enough. But you've got to master that impulse at some point before you've picked up so many stray kittens that you can't properly provide for any of them.
Google invests a lot of time, effort, and money into seeing to all its employees' needs, or as close to that as possible. There are extremely sound business reasons for so doing; on the one hand, it tends to cultivate loyalty to the company on the part of its employees, and on the other, it does a great deal to alleviate the little nuisances of everyday living which would otherwise distract said employees from spending their every effort on behalf of the company.
This effort, though, is by far most effective for employees who spend their time mostly at the Googleplex -- for a Googler, being at work means, among other things, access to free food, laundry service, exercise equipment, play equipment, and frankly if Google could legally play host to an on-premises brothel then I strongly suspect they'd offer that amenity as well. Being at home, however pleasant, means worrying about all those things yourself. Especially given the sort of nigh-monomaniacal focus on one's vocation which tends to come with being a skilled enough programmer to get hired at Google, is it any wonder that Googlers largely prefer to spend their time at work?
What? Of course the American aborigines had a "non-immigrant policy"! It's just that theirs, which operated largely at the retail level of slaughtering a farmhouse's or outpost's worth of whites when opportunity arose, failed to out-compete our own ancestors' wholesale "come on, then, if you think you're hard enough" policy.
What about the presence of these buses prevents San Francisco's city fathers from implementing "decent public transport that everyone can use"? Unless you're prepared to postulate running gunfights between Google buses and Muni buses, which would be entertaining but seems highly improbable, I'm not really seeing how the presence of the former prevents the multiplication of the latter.
Potentially being able to influence the result of a process of government isn't anything like having more power than, or even as much power as, government -- were Google so equipped, they could just tell the revenuers to get stuffed, or else to take their best shot.
Put more simply: How many divisions has Google?
Guy Fawkes: You clearly, if not quite succinctly, state the crippling flaw of all utopianism: entropy. I assure you that you need not find it so difficult to relinquish the remnant belief in same, which leads you to rail against the inevitable, and I offer the further assurance that you will certainly find yourself a more joyful and less burdened person for its absence.
Mr. Marsden: Your point regarding my use of names is well taken, and I have remedied the laxness in which it originated. Unfortunately, in every other point under consideration, your analysis leaves everything to be desired.
You don't merely confuse correlation with causation; you fail to recognize them as distinct entities, an error not evident in the paper you cite, and which I am therefore forced to assume originates in sloppy habits of thought on your part. You are several hundred years too late to get away with pre-Copernicanism, sir; I urge you to update your understanding of science.
You further attempt argumentum ad solum radicem to deflect my charge of eugenicist belief on your part, despite your having blithely assumed the existence of an ideal human breeding habit, on your way to a flat declaration that you know the means of accomplishing same; if I am culpable of any error in that regard, it is in classing you a eugenicist rather than a dysgenicist, clarification of which question I sought to elicit by the response at which you see fit to sneer.
Then, of course, you accuse me not merely of ignorance, but of argumentum ad effigiem. While our past disputations have left me with a rather low opinion of your intellectual acuity, they lie far enough behind us that I had hoped better of you now. I must say, sir, you have done masterfully well in frustrating that hope, if sadly in no other regard.