Google Fucks iGoogle Users Without a Reach Around!

Changes went into effect today for iGoogle users without warning and without the ability to opt out. As I was searching about for answers to that age old question, "What the fuck just happened to my homepage?", I ended up in Google groups. The reaction there wasn't even close to being lukewarm. There were people there that were even more pissed off than I am....if that's possible. Many of the posts were from people who were already wondering aloud who their new homepage and email provider would be. In the time it took me to post my diatribe there were 8 equally venomous posts added.

Based on the moderator's lame-ass post in the thread, it would appear that Google simply doesn't care and they think this is an improvement. Here's what he said...

"We've been gathering input on the new features for several weeks from this group, usability testing, statistical analysis, and survey data. 

All of this feedback is important to us and while we weren't able to respond to all of them, I want to assure you we've been listening. 

The new iGoogle features went through the same development process that all our products do: we prototype them, and put them through a vigorous set of usability tests and experiments to make sure we are doing the right thing for users. The iGoogle features we're launching today went through this exact process and we've made changes along the way based on feedback from users and developers. Specific examples of  the impact of this group: 

* A narrower navigation area on the left side of the page.   

* An option to remove the snippets displayed with feeds.

* Gmail reply added was added as soon as possible. 

Coming soon:

 * Proper links in Gmail  

 * Drag 'n' drop gadgets between tabs 

 * Chat

 * More canvas view gadgets"

-Paul 

iGoogle Guide

As you can tell by Paul's post, foisting this upon the users was a well thought out plan that was approved of by more than one person. Are these people they hired from Redmond? I suggest you stay tuned to watch the fallout from this debacle. The Google haters will be coming out in droves to point out the "Evil" that they have perpetrated....the rest of us just want our damn homepage back the way it was!

Watch the discussion rage on here

Why Exxon Won't Produce More Oil

If you want to understand it, listen in to ExxonMobil's presentation to analysts in New York City in early March. Halfway through the three-hour meeting, Exxon management flashed a chart that showed the company's worldwide oil production staying flat through 2012.

Ponder that for a minute. Exxon is the largest publicly traded company in the energy business. In fact, it's the most profitable company in the history of capitalism, earning a record $40.6 billion last year on sales of $404 billion. Yet even with crude oil prices near all-time highs, Exxon isn't planning on producing any more oil four years from now than it did last year.

What if Steve Jobs said Apple wasn't going to sell any more iPhones than it did in 2007? What if Howard Schultz said latte production at Starbucks would stagnate, at least until the next U.S. president embarked on his or her re-election campaign? Shares of both companies would plummet.

===================================================

This kind of crap has been going on for a long time now. Corporate America has been playing this game for years. It's all about the bottom line, with no real concern for the effect it has on the rest of the economy. Big oil did the same thing in the 1970's oil crisis. Everyone cried that they would never let this kind of outrage ever happen again. Then we elected Bush and all his oil cronies to lead our country. Everyone knew who they were voting for the first term, and then they went and did it again. Perhaps, but not likely, we will learn our lesson from all this.

It would be easy to think that this kind of corporate plundering is only happening in the realm of big oil companies, but the fact is this kind of profiteering is happening in other sectors as well. This type of activity is all too apparent in the financial sector as well. Banks, mortgage companies and Wall Street all knew the risks of shady lending practices should have outweighed the lure of huge profits, but when they saw the dollar signs, they ignored the fact that this behavior would decimate our economy and took the easy money. Now they want the government to bail them out. It makes one yearn for the much simpler days of Enron and Worldcom.

It's not easy to not see the writing on the wall here. As the economy tanks, and energy demands decline, soon big oil will be lobbying Congress to give them tax breaks. They'll cry about Opec and countries like Venezuela flooding the market with cheap oil, coupled with the high costs of producing alternative fuels, as the reason for their shrinking bottom line. When in reality, the bottom line was artificialy inflated (by them) in the first place. If this sounds familiar, it's because it is a very similar equation to the one that has led us to the current housing/mortgage crisis.

Why Exxon won't produce more oil - MSN Money

Perfect Explanation of the Net Neutrality Debate

This video makes it very easy to understand the debate about net neutrality. It explains why everyone who uses the internet should be outraged at the government for not standing up to corporate greed. It also gives us great insight into the reason why the ISP's have been so slow to provide reasonable levels of service to rural customers. I would strongly recommend that everyone who has a voice should use it to contact their Congressional Representatives and demand that they stand up to corporate greed and keep the internet a beacon of free speech that is easily accessible to everyone. I would also encourage everyone to share this video with all of the people in their contact lists. If people sceam loud enough, with one voice, perhaps we can drown out the powerful Washington lobbyists who would like to gain control of the internet and impede on our freedom to communicate. It wouldn't be the first time they've tried....

Digg This Story!

Principal Orders Eigth Grader Strip Searched for Ibuprofen

This month the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is scheduled to rehear a case involving a Tucson, AZ eighth-grader who was strip-searched by school administrators enforcing a "zero tolerance" drug policy.
"The drugs in question were ibuoprofen pills -- prescription-strength, 400-milligram pills (equivalent to a couple over-the-counter Advil caplets), but nothing anyone would or could use to get high."

Principal Orders Eigth Grader Strip Searched for Ibuprofen

How can an untrained (and obviously over-zealous) school official be allowed to search anyone? If there was any implication of illeagal drugs (prescriptions used by anyone other than the person they are prescribed), the police should have been called. Some may get hung up on the fact it was just ibuprofen. (Why do you need a prescription for these anyway? You can easily take 4 of the over the counter variety to equal the 800mg prescription stuff.)But, what if it were a narcotic painkiller? Would the principal still have ordered a strip search or would he have involved the police? Of course the proper thing to do would be to involve the cops. So, why should this case be any different.
Besides the question of constitutionality, wouldn't anything found in a search by someone who is not a law enforcement officer be easily tossed out as inadmissable if you had a decent lawyer? This whole story sickens me.
While I can empathize with school officials trying to run a school free of drugs of any type, one cannot condone such outrageous, improper behavior. Laws that protect our basic freedoms, like the protection from illeagal search and seizure, should always trump any perceived or real government policy. This behavior is made even more unacceptable on any level when the act involves a minor. School officials are responsible for protecting our children, not violating them, while in their care and custody.
Based on the reports I have read on this case, even a police officer would have a hard time justifying a strip search. The "suspect" denied the original accusation, didn't resist a search of her personal belongings and in fact nothing that occured in the course of investigating that gave them "reasonable cause" to suspect she was lying and continue with a strip search.
The school district and those involved should be sued into the stone age to ensure that this type of incident never occurs in any school district again.
Where's Bill O'reilly when you need him? I'd love to see him pick up on this case and make it his "outrageous story" segment for the next six months! Our rights and liberties are being constantly eroded by the government and the proper balance needs to be restored!

read more ...digg this story