Spyware is a type of malware that is installed on computers and that collects information about users without their knowledge.
I think that Google Privacy Terms say exactly what is collected.
No need to quote wiki. Maybe to you it's OK, but I'm not taking any chances. That's why people have firewalls installed. From the day I bought Little Snitch I now know which application is calling "Home" and why. Apple does the same with it's applications and Google , man, the whole it's operation is based on the manipulation of THE INFORMATION .
No need to quote wiki. Maybe to you it's OK, but I'm not taking any chances. That's why people have firewalls installed. From the day I bought Little Snitch I now know which application is calling "Home" and why. Apple does the same with it's applications and Google , man, the whole it's operation is based on the manipulation of THE INFORMATION .
Yes, they call home, but calling home doesn't make a program spyware.
Google is being very clever, setting the stage to pit upset iPhone users against Apple if Google GPS is rejected. This would set the stage to draw irritated iPhone users into the Droid/Android/G2 camp. At any rate, Apple is now behind the curve in addressing this issue, Google looks like the "good guy". Teh Steve had better address this or offer a better alternative right fast.
I think this is an interesting development. I do really like the iPhone... but I keep realizing that my whole cloud belongs to Google and all my important apps are written by them. If Apple keeps up these anticompetitive practices up against Google (whether or not FCC smacks them down) people may treat Apple as damage and route around them.
1. Apple re-writes the built-in Maps app to include the Google Navigation and Lattitude features.
2. A separate Google Navigation app. Will probably not be allowed by Apple, since it would duplicate a lot of the built-in Maps app.
3. Google delivers an app using the MapKit API. The API is probably not powerful enough for this purpose.
No 1 would be the best option, but it would require a new firmware.
/Daniel
#1 would be nothing new, as we remember that Apple added locating features in 1.1.3 and street view in 2.x (don't remember correctly which version it was). I doubt we'll see a separate application, just like you said.
A free navigation app does not an iPhone-killer make.
I agree, despite all the hype from the tech "journalists", I don't actually think this is a "killer app". On the other hand, I do think it's yet another indicator that Apple needs to divorce the iPhone from Google as much as possible and eliminate as many dependencies they have on them as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
A monopoly isn't illegal. Abuse of monopolistic position to limit competition is illegal.
To be considered a monopoly you have to have exclusive control over a market, Google has its hands in a lot of places but doesn't have exclusive control over anything.
Well, antitrust law is a little broader than just, "Abuse of monopolistic position to limit competition." It also includes, for example, use of your market position to gain control over other markets, predatory pricing, and attempted monopolization, creation of cartels, etc.. So, you don't necessarily have to have, "exclusive control over a market," to violate antitrust law.
But, it may well be that current antitrust law is becoming outdated: the Sherman Act is over 100 years old, and conditions in markets today are vastly different than in 1890. Today, Wall Street firms that are "too big to fail" and companies like Google, which may just be getting too big, with too much control over too much information, present real dangers that need to be addressed, and it may be time for legislative action based on the recognition that companies that become too large and too powerful present at least the very real possibility of causing great harm, even if they don't violate the letter of current antitrust law.
Can we stop saying that Google created the Maps app on the iPhone. I distinctly remember Jobs remarking that Google were really impressed when Apple showed them the Maps app which APPLE had made. This is why it's quite different from Google's version of maps. You only have to look at the pins to realise this. Apple just streams Google's maps data.
I agree, despite all the hype from the tech "journalists", I don't actually think this is a "killer app". On the other hand, I do think it's yet another indicator that Apple needs to divorce the iPhone from Google as much as possible and eliminate as many dependencies they have on them as possible.
Well, antitrust law is a little broader than just, "Abuse of monopolistic position to limit competition." It also includes, for example, use of your market position to gain control over other markets, predatory pricing, and attempted monopolization, creation of cartels, etc.. So, you don't necessarily have to have, "exclusive control over a market," to violate antitrust law.
But, it may well be that current antitrust law is becoming outdated: the Sherman Act is over 100 years old, and conditions in markets today are vastly different than in 1890. Today, Wall Street firms that are "too big to fail" and companies like Google, which may just be getting too big, with too much control over too much information, present real dangers that need to be addressed, and it may be time for legislative action based on the recognition that companies that become too large and too powerful present at least the very real possibility of causing great harm, even if they don't violate the letter of current antitrust law.
I agree. There are a lot of laws that need to be brought up to speed. And a lot of legislators along with them.
What always bothered me about Google was they do not delete anything. Ever.
Mostly, people's reaction when I said that was, "so, I don't have anything to hide." Yeah, but they also have information about everything you type in, forever. Even when you search...log your ip address and your search. If you're logged in to gmail, they know exactly who you are and what you searched for. Forever is a long time, longer than you will ever know.
Just because they don't apparently use this information for anything malicious, doesn't mean they always won't.
Imagine if Microsoft did have back doors in their code, and spied on you. Gathering everything you ever typed into your computer...learning where you shop, what you shop for, business letters you write, dates of your appointments, etc. And kept it forever.
Google is doing it, just out in the open, and their software is free. You know that they are doing it. And you all are cool with that?
Abuse of monopoly to limit competition is pretty broad and ultimately is what anti-trust is intended to stop. All of the examples you list, controlling markets, predatory pricing, price fixing, cartels. A company has to have a controlling interest of a market to even do any of those things. The purpose for a company to do those things is to limit competition.
Wall Street firms, the banking industry, and Google are all entirely different situations governed by different rules. We have laws to keep Wall Street and the banking industry in check, our past Republican presidents weakened or repealed those laws in the name of free markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Well, antitrust law is a little broader than just, "Abuse of monopolistic position to limit competition." It also includes, for example, use of your market position to gain control over other markets, predatory pricing, and attempted monopolization, creation of cartels, etc.. So, you don't necessarily have to have, "exclusive control over a market," to violate antitrust law.
But, it may well be that current antitrust law is becoming outdated: the Sherman Act is over 100 years old, and conditions in markets today are vastly different than in 1890. Today, Wall Street firms that are "too big to fail" and companies like Google, which may just be getting too big, with too much control over too much information, present real dangers that need to be addressed, and it may be time for legislative action based on the recognition that companies that become too large and too powerful present at least the very real possibility of causing great harm, even if they don't violate the letter of current antitrust law.
Where have you heard that Google is recording every keystroke we make and storing it forever? That's a bunch of nonsense.
Largely what Google does is collect data to feed us advertisements. If you don't like their business model you certain are free to not use any of their products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
What always bothered me about Google was they do not delete anything. Ever.
Mostly, people's reaction when I said that was, "so, I don't have anything to hide." Yeah, but they also have information about everything you type in, forever. Even when you search...log your ip address and your search. If you're logged in to gmail, they know exactly who you are and what you searched for. Forever is a long time, longer than you will ever know.
Just because they don't apparently use this information for anything malicious, doesn't mean they always won't.
Abuse of monopoly to limit competition is pretty broad and ultimately is what anti-trust is intended to stop. All of the examples you list, controlling markets, predatory pricing, price fixing, cartels. A company has to have a controlling interest of a market to even do any of those things. The purpose for a company to do those things is to limit competition.
Wall Street firms, the banking industry, and Google are all entirely different situations governed by different rules. We have laws to keep Wall Street and the banking industry in check, our past Republican presidents weakened or repealed those laws in the name of free markets.
Actually, antitrust law is intended to stop consumer harm, and more broadly, societal harm. And one could very easily argue that Google has or is approaching a "controlling interest" in a number of markets, if not actually an outright monopoly.
The financial industry and Google do present different risks, however, they are similar in the way that their sheer size is what may present the greatest danger. This clearly is, and has been a problem in the financial industry, but that doesn't mean the examination of the problems of size should be limited to that industry. Large, controlling companies present different dangers in different industries, but the dangers all stem from the size and degree of control the company has. It's time for antitrust law to look at the dangers in today's economy and business environment, and not just at those of the past.
A law cannot be passed that just says this law is to stop consumer and societal harm, that so vague as to be meaningless. How does the law specifically stop consumer and societal harm. Anti-trust is to specifically stop companies from using monopolistic position to limit competition.
There isn't much government can do to keep a company from growing large. If the company actually is good at what it does and grows within fair competition, there is no reason to limit or stop their growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Actually, antitrust law is intended to stop consumer harm, and more broadly, societal harm. And one could very easily argue that Google has or is approaching a "controlling interest" in a number of markets, if not actually an outright monopoly.
The financial industry and Google do present different risks, however, they are similar in the way that their sheer size is what may present the greatest danger. This clearly is, and has been a problem in the financial industry, but that doesn't mean the examination of the problems of size should be limited to that industry. Large, controlling companies present different dangers in different industries, but the dangers all stem from the size and degree of control the company has. It's time for antitrust law to look at the dangers in today's economy and business environment, and not just at those of the past.
Where have you heard that Google is recording every keystroke we make and storing it forever? That's a bunch of nonsense.
Largely what Google does is collect data to feed us advertisements. If you don't like their business model you certain are free to not use any of their products.
Here's a good article for you to read to see how I feel about that:
Indefinite may mean they do delete it at some point, but it also might mean they don't. I'm of the opinion they don't. I'm pessimistic like that.
Also...if you have a gmail account, or any google account probably, go ahead and log in. Go to the link "My Account" at the top. Find "Web History" and click on it. See the searches you've entered. Mine go back to 2008.
Apple should probably take advantage of having the Google Navigator and just focus on adding value to it that distinguishes the platform.
That said... Google is become scarier and scarier.
Can everyone see what they're doing?
The Droid looks to be the best gambit yet towards creating a vision of the future of mobile computing. Android is a container implementing Google's best practices for their various cloud APIs. Anyone who thinks "iPhone vs. Droid" is missing the point. Google is doing an "end-run" on becoming integrated into EVERY device and EVERY operating system on the planet. Android is Google's insurance that their cloud computing platform cannot be marginalized. By keeping most of their value in the cloud, they can afford to "open source" the core system. By virtually giving away Android OS, and doing everything to popularize the platform, Google makes its services more attractive to other operating systems (like iPhone OS).
When I saw Google Mobile, with its Voice Search relying on the Google search engine, I became very impressed with the ability to use the power of a search engine to decipher voice input into likely commands. "THAT's power!", I thought. I made a post on another forum saying that Apple or Google should extend this to an entire operating system. --Google has now done that ADMIRABLY, and continued to push it even further with its amazing new "Turn-by-Turn Navigation" features.
Suddenly, Apple's game just got a LOT smaller, and its VERY clear why Apple could not readily allow Google Voice to appropriate its phone features. Google has set out to PUNK everyone who's not paying attention. They will give away services left-and-right. Some silly writers will think Google will "hold back" functions from Apple, when in reality Google is only too happy to offer them to Apple for integration into the iPhone. When Apple doesn't use the technology, Google will be only too happy to create a new iPhone app. Google Maps for Mobile will permeate every OS. Google services will find their way into a myriad of custom applications on each device.
Buy Google stock. Sell short on TomTom, Garmin, RIM, Palm and Nokia.
Apple? They're quickly becoming one of the only remaining two companies that will be able to compete with Google's game plan. In modern times, we will quickly realize that we do not know the meaning of the word "monopoly". Years from now, we will realize this as a pivotal moment before Google became the most powerful corporation on the face of the planet. When governments begin to understand and attempt to legislate the problem, it will be virtually impossible to understand how to even begin breaking Google up.
There will be no clear "categories" Google will fall into. Everything will be part of one pervasive miasma hooked into the same backend.
~ CB
Welcome to the Matrix young Neo... The blue pill tastes like chicken...
A law cannot be passed that just says this law is to stop consumer and societal harm, that so vague as to be meaningless. How does the law specifically stop consumer and societal harm. Anti-trust is to specifically stop companies from using monopolistic position to limit competition.
There isn't much government can do to keep a company from growing large. If the company actually is good at what it does and grows within fair competition, there is no reason to limit or stop their growth.
Well, I'm afraid you are mistaken, since that is the original purpose behind, and primary intent of, antitrust law.
As for there being, "no reason to limit or stop their growth," I think events of the past year+ on Wall Street are contradiction enough of that premise. If these companies hadn't been as big as they were, with fingers in as many pies as they had, it might have been practical to have allowed many of them to simply fail, rather than have to prop them up with taxpayer bailouts that allow them to now, again, reap record profits while engaged in risky behavior while the rest of the economy and, more importantly, the taxpayers struggle as a direct result of they havoc they have wreaked. Mega-companies have the potential of creating mega-problems, and we have every reason and right to not allow that to happen by limiting their size and reach.
Comments
How it's not a spyware?
Spyware is a type of malware that is installed on computers and that collects information about users without their knowledge.
I think that Google Privacy Terms say exactly what is collected.
Spyware is a type of malware that is installed on computers and that collects information about users without their knowledge.
I think that Google Privacy Terms say exactly what is collected.
No need to quote wiki. Maybe to you it's OK, but I'm not taking any chances. That's why people have firewalls installed. From the day I bought Little Snitch I now know which application is calling "Home" and why. Apple does the same with it's applications and Google
No need to quote wiki. Maybe to you it's OK, but I'm not taking any chances. That's why people have firewalls installed. From the day I bought Little Snitch I now know which application is calling "Home" and why. Apple does the same with it's applications and Google
Yes, they call home, but calling home doesn't make a program spyware.
Yes, they call home, but calling home doesn't make a program spyware.
Can you prove it? No. Can I prove it? No. Doesn't mean that's not what's happening
...carry on Google, shut up voters.
Google is Yahoo but more successful. If you want to legislate against them, you would ban pervasive advertising in your country. Game over for google.
1. Apple re-writes the built-in Maps app to include the Google Navigation and Lattitude features.
2. A separate Google Navigation app. Will probably not be allowed by Apple, since it would duplicate a lot of the built-in Maps app.
3. Google delivers an app using the MapKit API. The API is probably not powerful enough for this purpose.
No 1 would be the best option, but it would require a new firmware.
/Daniel
Google is being very clever, setting the stage to pit upset iPhone users against Apple if Google GPS is rejected. This would set the stage to draw irritated iPhone users into the Droid/Android/G2 camp. At any rate, Apple is now behind the curve in addressing this issue, Google looks like the "good guy". Teh Steve had better address this or offer a better alternative right fast.
I think this is an interesting development. I do really like the iPhone... but I keep realizing that my whole cloud belongs to Google and all my important apps are written by them. If Apple keeps up these anticompetitive practices up against Google (whether or not FCC smacks them down) people may treat Apple as damage and route around them.
Letting your grammer slide
Oops.
Well, it's a bit complicated. Three alternatives:
1. Apple re-writes the built-in Maps app to include the Google Navigation and Lattitude features.
2. A separate Google Navigation app. Will probably not be allowed by Apple, since it would duplicate a lot of the built-in Maps app.
3. Google delivers an app using the MapKit API. The API is probably not powerful enough for this purpose.
No 1 would be the best option, but it would require a new firmware.
/Daniel
#1 would be nothing new, as we remember that Apple added locating features in 1.1.3 and street view in 2.x (don't remember correctly which version it was). I doubt we'll see a separate application, just like you said.
A free navigation app does not an iPhone-killer make.
I agree, despite all the hype from the tech "journalists", I don't actually think this is a "killer app". On the other hand, I do think it's yet another indicator that Apple needs to divorce the iPhone from Google as much as possible and eliminate as many dependencies they have on them as possible.
A monopoly isn't illegal. Abuse of monopolistic position to limit competition is illegal.
To be considered a monopoly you have to have exclusive control over a market, Google has its hands in a lot of places but doesn't have exclusive control over anything.
Well, antitrust law is a little broader than just, "Abuse of monopolistic position to limit competition." It also includes, for example, use of your market position to gain control over other markets, predatory pricing, and attempted monopolization, creation of cartels, etc.. So, you don't necessarily have to have, "exclusive control over a market," to violate antitrust law.
But, it may well be that current antitrust law is becoming outdated: the Sherman Act is over 100 years old, and conditions in markets today are vastly different than in 1890. Today, Wall Street firms that are "too big to fail" and companies like Google, which may just be getting too big, with too much control over too much information, present real dangers that need to be addressed, and it may be time for legislative action based on the recognition that companies that become too large and too powerful present at least the very real possibility of causing great harm, even if they don't violate the letter of current antitrust law.
I agree, despite all the hype from the tech "journalists", I don't actually think this is a "killer app". On the other hand, I do think it's yet another indicator that Apple needs to divorce the iPhone from Google as much as possible and eliminate as many dependencies they have on them as possible.
Well, antitrust law is a little broader than just, "Abuse of monopolistic position to limit competition." It also includes, for example, use of your market position to gain control over other markets, predatory pricing, and attempted monopolization, creation of cartels, etc.. So, you don't necessarily have to have, "exclusive control over a market," to violate antitrust law.
But, it may well be that current antitrust law is becoming outdated: the Sherman Act is over 100 years old, and conditions in markets today are vastly different than in 1890. Today, Wall Street firms that are "too big to fail" and companies like Google, which may just be getting too big, with too much control over too much information, present real dangers that need to be addressed, and it may be time for legislative action based on the recognition that companies that become too large and too powerful present at least the very real possibility of causing great harm, even if they don't violate the letter of current antitrust law.
I agree. There are a lot of laws that need to be brought up to speed. And a lot of legislators along with them.
What always bothered me about Google was they do not delete anything. Ever.
Mostly, people's reaction when I said that was, "so, I don't have anything to hide." Yeah, but they also have information about everything you type in, forever. Even when you search...log your ip address and your search. If you're logged in to gmail, they know exactly who you are and what you searched for. Forever is a long time, longer than you will ever know.
Just because they don't apparently use this information for anything malicious, doesn't mean they always won't.
Imagine if Microsoft did have back doors in their code, and spied on you. Gathering everything you ever typed into your computer...learning where you shop, what you shop for, business letters you write, dates of your appointments, etc. And kept it forever.
Google is doing it, just out in the open, and their software is free. You know that they are doing it. And you all are cool with that?
Wall Street firms, the banking industry, and Google are all entirely different situations governed by different rules. We have laws to keep Wall Street and the banking industry in check, our past Republican presidents weakened or repealed those laws in the name of free markets.
Well, antitrust law is a little broader than just, "Abuse of monopolistic position to limit competition." It also includes, for example, use of your market position to gain control over other markets, predatory pricing, and attempted monopolization, creation of cartels, etc.. So, you don't necessarily have to have, "exclusive control over a market," to violate antitrust law.
But, it may well be that current antitrust law is becoming outdated: the Sherman Act is over 100 years old, and conditions in markets today are vastly different than in 1890. Today, Wall Street firms that are "too big to fail" and companies like Google, which may just be getting too big, with too much control over too much information, present real dangers that need to be addressed, and it may be time for legislative action based on the recognition that companies that become too large and too powerful present at least the very real possibility of causing great harm, even if they don't violate the letter of current antitrust law.
Largely what Google does is collect data to feed us advertisements. If you don't like their business model you certain are free to not use any of their products.
What always bothered me about Google was they do not delete anything. Ever.
Mostly, people's reaction when I said that was, "so, I don't have anything to hide." Yeah, but they also have information about everything you type in, forever. Even when you search...log your ip address and your search. If you're logged in to gmail, they know exactly who you are and what you searched for. Forever is a long time, longer than you will ever know.
Just because they don't apparently use this information for anything malicious, doesn't mean they always won't.
Can I prove the CIA did not plant a tracking device in your rectum? No, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And I'm not taking any chances.
Can you prove it? No. Can I prove it? No. Doesn't mean that's not what's happening
Abuse of monopoly to limit competition is pretty broad and ultimately is what anti-trust is intended to stop. All of the examples you list, controlling markets, predatory pricing, price fixing, cartels. A company has to have a controlling interest of a market to even do any of those things. The purpose for a company to do those things is to limit competition.
Wall Street firms, the banking industry, and Google are all entirely different situations governed by different rules. We have laws to keep Wall Street and the banking industry in check, our past Republican presidents weakened or repealed those laws in the name of free markets.
Actually, antitrust law is intended to stop consumer harm, and more broadly, societal harm. And one could very easily argue that Google has or is approaching a "controlling interest" in a number of markets, if not actually an outright monopoly.
The financial industry and Google do present different risks, however, they are similar in the way that their sheer size is what may present the greatest danger. This clearly is, and has been a problem in the financial industry, but that doesn't mean the examination of the problems of size should be limited to that industry. Large, controlling companies present different dangers in different industries, but the dangers all stem from the size and degree of control the company has. It's time for antitrust law to look at the dangers in today's economy and business environment, and not just at those of the past.
There isn't much government can do to keep a company from growing large. If the company actually is good at what it does and grows within fair competition, there is no reason to limit or stop their growth.
Actually, antitrust law is intended to stop consumer harm, and more broadly, societal harm. And one could very easily argue that Google has or is approaching a "controlling interest" in a number of markets, if not actually an outright monopoly.
The financial industry and Google do present different risks, however, they are similar in the way that their sheer size is what may present the greatest danger. This clearly is, and has been a problem in the financial industry, but that doesn't mean the examination of the problems of size should be limited to that industry. Large, controlling companies present different dangers in different industries, but the dangers all stem from the size and degree of control the company has. It's time for antitrust law to look at the dangers in today's economy and business environment, and not just at those of the past.
Where have you heard that Google is recording every keystroke we make and storing it forever? That's a bunch of nonsense.
Largely what Google does is collect data to feed us advertisements. If you don't like their business model you certain are free to not use any of their products.
Here's a good article for you to read to see how I feel about that:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...m_campaign=rss
The issue of Google not deleting your data is something different, and you can read about that here:
http://www.google-watch.org/gmail.html
Indefinite may mean they do delete it at some point, but it also might mean they don't. I'm of the opinion they don't. I'm pessimistic like that.
Also...if you have a gmail account, or any google account probably, go ahead and log in. Go to the link "My Account" at the top. Find "Web History" and click on it. See the searches you've entered. Mine go back to 2008.
Apple should probably take advantage of having the Google Navigator and just focus on adding value to it that distinguishes the platform.
That said... Google is become scarier and scarier.
Can everyone see what they're doing?
The Droid looks to be the best gambit yet towards creating a vision of the future of mobile computing. Android is a container implementing Google's best practices for their various cloud APIs. Anyone who thinks "iPhone vs. Droid" is missing the point. Google is doing an "end-run" on becoming integrated into EVERY device and EVERY operating system on the planet. Android is Google's insurance that their cloud computing platform cannot be marginalized. By keeping most of their value in the cloud, they can afford to "open source" the core system. By virtually giving away Android OS, and doing everything to popularize the platform, Google makes its services more attractive to other operating systems (like iPhone OS).
When I saw Google Mobile, with its Voice Search relying on the Google search engine, I became very impressed with the ability to use the power of a search engine to decipher voice input into likely commands. "THAT's power!", I thought. I made a post on another forum saying that Apple or Google should extend this to an entire operating system. --Google has now done that ADMIRABLY, and continued to push it even further with its amazing new "Turn-by-Turn Navigation" features.
Suddenly, Apple's game just got a LOT smaller, and its VERY clear why Apple could not readily allow Google Voice to appropriate its phone features. Google has set out to PUNK everyone who's not paying attention. They will give away services left-and-right. Some silly writers will think Google will "hold back" functions from Apple, when in reality Google is only too happy to offer them to Apple for integration into the iPhone. When Apple doesn't use the technology, Google will be only too happy to create a new iPhone app. Google Maps for Mobile will permeate every OS. Google services will find their way into a myriad of custom applications on each device.
Buy Google stock. Sell short on TomTom, Garmin, RIM, Palm and Nokia.
Apple? They're quickly becoming one of the only remaining two companies that will be able to compete with Google's game plan. In modern times, we will quickly realize that we do not know the meaning of the word "monopoly". Years from now, we will realize this as a pivotal moment before Google became the most powerful corporation on the face of the planet. When governments begin to understand and attempt to legislate the problem, it will be virtually impossible to understand how to even begin breaking Google up.
There will be no clear "categories" Google will fall into. Everything will be part of one pervasive miasma hooked into the same backend.
~ CB
Welcome to the Matrix young Neo... The blue pill tastes like chicken...
A law cannot be passed that just says this law is to stop consumer and societal harm, that so vague as to be meaningless. How does the law specifically stop consumer and societal harm. Anti-trust is to specifically stop companies from using monopolistic position to limit competition.
There isn't much government can do to keep a company from growing large. If the company actually is good at what it does and grows within fair competition, there is no reason to limit or stop their growth.
Well, I'm afraid you are mistaken, since that is the original purpose behind, and primary intent of, antitrust law.
As for there being, "no reason to limit or stop their growth," I think events of the past year+ on Wall Street are contradiction enough of that premise. If these companies hadn't been as big as they were, with fingers in as many pies as they had, it might have been practical to have allowed many of them to simply fail, rather than have to prop them up with taxpayer bailouts that allow them to now, again, reap record profits while engaged in risky behavior while the rest of the economy and, more importantly, the taxpayers struggle as a direct result of they havoc they have wreaked. Mega-companies have the potential of creating mega-problems, and we have every reason and right to not allow that to happen by limiting their size and reach.