Replacement of Google's ad frames by ads sold by ISPs' - coupled with revenue-sharing with customers - can hurt Google

Suppose a large ISP filters out all Google ad frames from all the websites/webpages being served to its customers [at network level], and replaces those with ads that it has itself sold. Now suppose that a nation's largest ISPs collude and carry out the same practice, with a common platform on which ads are bought and sold. This possibility seems real and seems like it would quickly and materially threaten ad-dependent non-ISP companies like Google. Customer consent for this practice can be obtained by promising revenue-sharing [ad revenue shared with both publishers and consumers].

It's to be noted that any argument that an ad-blocker installed on a user's Web browser represents a conscious choice made by the user whereas network-level blocking/replacement of ads by an ISP represents a choice forced upon users by ISPs [and that this violates net-neutrality] is an illogical argument if you mix one key ingredient - opt-in performed by users. In this case, the network-level blocking/replacement effectively becomes a case of the ad-blocker being installed "in the Cloud" rather than on the PC.

Innocent-looking faces of the most rotten top officials of America

Perhaps they purposely choose those folks who have sober-looking faces for the positions where an obscene level of corruption and heartlessness are required. And of course, their newspapers choose photos which make these rascals look nice and gentle and elegant, hiding away all the filth and scum inside.

That something has been censored must be told - else it could severely mar the experience or understanding of something

The other day I was watching Turistas on TV. Since I had already seen this movie some years ago, I could quickly notice that several scenes were not being shown [censored]. Turistas is one of those movies where these explicit/horrifying scenes are central to the story and experience of the movie. If cut, the movie feels as Coke would if sugar is removed from it. So for someone who hasn't seen this movie before, watching it on TV would make it seem like the movie isn't as good/impressive/entertaining as was claimed by someone who has seen the full movie previously.

Herein comes the idea that if/when censorship of a piece of content [movie, advertisement, book, article, newspaper, video, song, SERP, website, etc.] is done, it should at least be conveyed to the users that such censorship is in force on the content being consumed currently, so that the users don't wrongly/unfairly get an incorrect impression that the piece of content in question isn't as interesting/entertaining/shocking/strong as was claimed by others [who had consumed the full/unabridged version].

Can defence offset requirements be effectively bypassed by routing imported components via companies domiciled in India?

Indian government frequently requires a certain percentage of procurement value to be procured from local suppliers - an offset - in order to encourage transfer of technology as well as to stimulate local manufacturing. Sounds good.

But can these requirements be fooled by simply importing components into newly-created dummy companies in India, and then supplying these imported components, making it look like these have been supplied by Indian companies? Alternatively, these foreign-made components can be imported into already-established Indian manufacturing companies, and these Indian companies can then supply these components as-it-is after keeping a small margin, again making it look like these have been manufactured and supplied by an Indian company.

Resorting to divestment in Public Sector Undertakings [PSUs] to offset budget deficit is not a reform - it's a distress sale

Indian government uses stake sales in government-owned enterprises [PSUs] in order to compensate for the regular budget deficits. This is akin to someone selling a floor of his home in order to service the interest on his bank credit limit. This is not business, it's simply a distress sale. As if this so-called "strategy" weren't already bad enough, packaging and presenting it to the general public as if it is a "reform" is even worse.

A business and a government should sustain itself, and shouldn't have to resort to handing over state property to private owners - at throwaway prices - in order to make up for cash shortfall. Of course, the picture becomes more clear when you introduce the word "heist", which is what is happening in the Indian government. Under the pretext of divestment, the government is basically selling public property to private individuals/corporations and putting cash into the treasury, which is then of-course siphoned out by corrupt ministers/politicians via overpriced tenders, over-invoicing, etc.

Misusing returnability in online retail - when confused between two products, order both, and try out both, and finally return one

This is what I'm going to do as I'm confused between two toasters - one from Philips and other from Glen. I've ordered both and I'm going to use both for a week or so, and send back the one which I find less good. It looks like even otherwise good customers of Amazon can sometimes push the limits.

A cynical explanation for the rapid public adoption of encryption by Apple, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc. - only the US can spy

ALSO SEE OID 187Z.

Sometimes it appears to me that the rapid [and very public] adoption of encryption by American technology giants such as Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Facebook/WhatsApp, Twitter, Dropbox, AOL, etc., is actually/covertly being done hand-in-glove with all those usual criminal American military/spying agencies - CIA, DIA, NSA, etc.. Points to note here:

1. A strong public support in favor of encryption, public's right to privacy, human rights, blah blah blah, will assure the general public - most of whom are foolish sheep anyway - into believing that these top companies are fighting for the people and are on their side. Not. Such wrongly placed blind confidence will make the global population give away more and more of data as well as actions/activities of their lives to these companies.
2. More and more use of unbreakable encryption in products/services that are used by more and more people over the globe means that local governments just cannot monitor anything, allowing covert regime-change operations, etc., by criminal global actors such as the United States, without the knowledge of sovereign governments that do not accept the foreign policy ambitions/demands of the US.
3. The installation of secret/undeclared backdoors - without the foolish public's knowledge - in all such American products/services will allow the US government and its agencies - and only the US government and its agencies - to fully and promptly monitor/alter all the communications/data flowing globally, enabling it to secretly carry out operations that destabilize/destroy other nations and create unrest/violence there, as well as assess in real-time the effectiveness of these operations.

Why Google's driverless, self-driving cars are really a big deal - some important reasons and thoughts

• Uber is worried about Google's cars, because driverless, self-driving cars are both a threat to and an opportunity for Uber. A startup using such automated cars could usurp Uber because its drivers - the software - doesn't need sleep and doesn't fall ill and doesn't go on a strike. There's opportunity here too - such automated cars could work 24x7x365, quickly and efficiently transporting men and goods where needed. The larger/wider the network, the lesser the distance/time when these cars run idle, and the higher the utilization that generates revenue. Game-changer is a small word.
• Apple [and also Samsung, Microsoft, Facebook, etc.] is worried about Google's cars because it knows that a significant proportion of any person's time is spent commuting inside a car. Google's cars, which won't have to be driven manually, naturally will keep the occupants occupied by serving them all sorts of context-sensitive/local/targeted ads and other content [audio/music, movies/videos, photos, news, etc.], and also by taking care of their emails, calendar, phone calls, searches, payments, and so on. Inside a Google car it'll naturally all be done by Google [and all of it will be monitored and recorded for analysis], thus tightly locking the owner(s) into Google's ecosystem and thus also progressively making Google's services better, more focused and overall more relevant/useful [and thus insurmountable after a point].

What an irony - Yahoo has a lot of users/visitors but no useful services, while OLX, Quikr have useful services but have to pay to acquire users

It intrigues me that established/veteran powerhouses such as Yahoo [especially] and AOL [to some extent] have a lot of regular users/visitors - numbering in millions - but neither of them has even a single new-age, innovative product/service in its portfolio. For example, in the last few years, India has witnessed an explosive rise of services such as BookMyShow, Flipkart/Snapdeal, OLX/Quikr, Ola, MobiKwik/Paytm, Zomato, etc., but there has been no such cutting-edge product/service from Yahoo India. Does Yahoo India have no idea incubator/startup incubator lab which gives wings to those creative guys who have the idea and the zeal to launch a new, innovative venture [drawing on the established user base of and funding from Yahoo India]?

In contrast, look at the startups. They're - and this includes OLX, Flipkart, Ola, etc. - literally burning money in order to acquire customers. These startups have the catchy ideas and the zeal, but are short on cash and customers.

What an irony.

Update [Feb'16]: It's of course painful to see Yahoo shutter product after product ["Product Prioritization"], including seemingly important/innovative ones like Yahoo Maps and Yahoo Pipes.

Artificially increasing friction and hassles in online financial transactions in the name of customer safety isn't good

I don't have any problem with Indian banks adopting a mandatory delay before money can be transferred to a newly-added payee [likely at the instructions of our RBI], in the name of safety. However, I do have a problem with banks not allowing this even to folks who are willing to assume all the risks upon themselves. For example, I'm willing to tell my bank that it should allow me to transfer any amount even to a newly-added payee [and also that I should be able to instantly activate a new payee, rather than having to wait for 30 minutes], and that I take upon myself any financial fraud risk this brings. But banks won't allow this, thus artificially making the online process slower and more cumbersome than offline methods [like issuing cheques].