Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

31 July 2009

Make money with "Google Profits"?


I don't think so!

Try a search for "Google Profits". Seems to come up heavily associated with "scam". See, for example rantrave's comment on this.

Your scammer alert system should buzz when you see articles like this one, saying "Get Google Profits, only pay the $0.99 for shipping." What is getting shipped? Google wouldn't do that - they'd give you a secure web page, as with AdSense, or a free download at worst.

08 May 2009

Your health and Star Trek

I took my beautiful wife out on a date last night to see the new Star Trek movie. I was surprised to see Winona Ryder and Jennifer Morrison (confusingly named Winona Kirk) in the credits - they weren't too recognizable. The movie's a blast, highly recommended, great entertainment. But drop all logic at the door.

Something we shouldn't drop at the door, though, is regard for our own health. Movie theatres are about great entertainment - and eating. The stuff they sell is awful! Sugar drinks and popcorn loaded with sodium. My wife bought some popcorn, and I couldn't have more than a handful, as I was overwhelmed with the saltiness. A couple seats over, an obese young man was drinking from a 2-liter bottle of generic cola, and chewing on gummy worms.

I wish the theatres would sell healthier food, but they do what they do as they have honed their profits to the tee. They are giving their customers what the customers demand. If anyone has an answer out there, sing out.

25 December 2008

Proverbs should come in threes.


Leave room for hypocrisy.

Black is slimming, especially if you exercise while wearing it.

Those who seek perfection attain it. Those who claim perfection fall short.

09 February 2008

Ethics and water charging

Water pricing often makes people worry about poor people. A recent study on Punjabi farmers described the environmental problems associated with farmers' wasteful use of water. Charging the farmers just 25% of the price that city people had to pay would be enough to motivate the farmers to be much more careful. This would have only a modest effect on their incomes, but would have much better environmental outcomes.

Why the farmers should pay 75% less than the poor city people is beyond me.

This whole issue of "social acceptability" for water pricing makes no sense. Water should be priced like everything else - by supply and demand. It most certainly should not be free, just as oil, plastic, and herbicides shouldn't be free. Its use has too big of an effect on everyone else.