And that

Cheers!

“Trying to make a profit” is all well and good in the abstract.
It’s when you ask questions such as “how” those profits are made, that things become sticky.

I mean, sure, we’re all familiar with the ol’ standby used in manufacturing: scrimp on things like design and materials, make it flimsy in the extreme, with a warranty-period just slightly longer than the thing’s projected lifespan. Every one of those “cost-cutting” measures is explicitly designed to “make a profit” by maximizing the margin between costs and price (because ultimately, that’s all “profit” IS — the discrepancy between what it cost you, and what you sell it for. Elementary economics lesson over)

Or how about “name-brand” sneaker companies that pay their third-world (slave)labor-force a few cents per unit, and then turn around and sell each pair of shoes for 250 bucks? Makes great “economic” sense — after all, their profit-margin is absolutely huge. Pesky little issues like “outsourcing” destroying economies in the developing world, deliberate impoverishment of their own workforce, human-rights violations by corporate sweatshop-owners, improper disposal of toxic waste, etc. just get treated as “externalities” — somebody else’s problem. Why? Because actually bothering to address these issues would cut into the profit-margins, and we absolutely cannot have that, at any cost.

So pardon some of us if we don’t just view “profit” as an all-purpose excuse for ruining the world.

Bye now

I’d have no problem with Gargoyle if it was up-front and honest about what it’s doing and why, trying to enlist potential customers as reasonable people who’d be only too happy to be kept informed about what’s happening and who’s making it happen, perhaps buying whatever it is once they know the score

Instead, Gargle treats them as dupes who only deserve to be scammed.

Cheers!

Something else from that link you posted that reinforces this concern…

“Ask the Electronic Privacy Information Center what they think of Google’s privacy policies. (Hint: Not good). To give you a sense of how Google thinks – the original Chrome browser EULA gave Google the rights to everything you *created or viewed* inside their browser. Amazing what you can learn when you read those things. They evenutally changed this policy under public pressure, but that was their first choice??”

“The stakes are big enough that it’s worth the shot for Google. Google makes money through targeted advertising. The more they know about what you do, the better the ads you get will perform. If Google knows what you do at the operating system level, they can deliver you more specific advertising content.”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-19882_3-10283555-250.html

Think about it.

Cheers!

any way, I`m thinking that the “storing everything online” model poses some security/privacy and access issues. You`d be under the mercy of internet providers and external cables, hardware and software. What about bandwidth and “three strikes laws”? What if I cant connect to the internet for some reason (financial or random connection problems.)

I do realize that technology will advance, and that I am not being forced into “cloud computing”. I just thought it was worth mentioning. Maybe you can ease my mind.