hamana

Thank you for the answer.

  Like most things, people were ok with it happening to others and only had an issue when it happened to them.

Bravo! People today will say that slaves were in pain and suffering. Their masters knew that.

  The idea that all slavery is wrong is a far more modern idea. 

Yes. People today are like those parrots - just repeating what everyone around them believes. It's like a religion. Religion people adopt is heavily influenced by parents and environment, not critical thinking. That's why I wrote people who are against slavery are not critical thinkers and introspective.

  Unlike the OP I do not present that as a bad thing.

I do not think of human slavery as good or bad. I am NEUTRAL about it. I don't think that anything is inherently right or wrong. When people use those terms, they are expressing their personal feeling, not objective feature of the world.

What do you disagree with?

  A runaway domesticated animal may stand a significantly higher risk of injury than its wild brethren.

I'm talking about what's happening before the escape has happened. Why is domestication(slavery) allowed in the first place?

  Domesticated animals also so often have a much higher standard of living than in the wild;

Slaves in USA had higher standard of living than if they had stayed in Africa.

  it is hard to argue that an owned animal is deprived as much as an owned human.

How is a enslaved human more depraved than a horse? They both are under control of their master and get basics to survive. The difference between them is that horse and human are a different species. In terms of deprivation, it's about the same.

  "How edgy to you have to be to try and argue about the morality behind slavery."

How brainwashed do you have to be to mimic the beliefs of people around you?

  "When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point"

What do vague labels like 'conscious' and 'self-aware' have to do with slavery?

  "...but you're taking it way too far with this whole energy molecules thing."

Are members of homo sapiens species not clusters of elementary particles? Have you studies physics or chemistry at all?

  "What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms?"

Absolutely. Why is it fine to enslave bio-chemical processes known as 'fish', but not okay to enslave 'humans'? Is it objectively wrong to enslave members of homo sapiens species? If aliens came to Earth and used humans the same way humans use fish, what would be wrong with that?

No, I put 'Coca Cola'... Can you read?

Another thing to mention is that Google reports its Network Members revenue as a gross revenue, not their cut. It would be like eBay reporting $80b in revenue, not their cut ($8b). So, Google in '14 reported $14 billion in revenue for Network Members, but 70% of that is sent to publishers. Their 'real' revenue would be around $4 billion. On the other hand, ad revenue for Google websites (search engines) was $45 billion. Google makes many times more money from its search engines than all the publishers in the world on Google Network Members combined. That's a cash cow.

It doesn't affect Adwords for search results. That is the real cash cow that is growing each year by double digit percentages.

Doubleclick and Adsense on the other hand are starting to slow down and make up less share of Google's overall revenue [1]. In 2004 it was 50% of their revenue, now it's 20% and it's probably going to shrink even further as AdWords revenue and other revenues(cloud, apis) increase.

  > [1] http://www.statista.com/statistics/266471/distribution-of-googles-revenues-by-source/

  > paying off initial investors

Here comes Charles Ponzi ...

Why doesn't Twilio have 34% profit margin? Because their price is low and their costs are high. If they increase the price of their product and cut certain costs, they would have similar profit margin to Microsoft.

Why does Twilio need investor money to grow and Microsoft did not? Microsoft also grew rapidly, but didn't take a lot of outside funding. Why? Because they charged adequate price for their products. In the documents, Twilio stated they have a hard time determining pricing (something I've seen with other SaaS companies as well). Since they are not profitable with the current pricing, they should increase it and cut certain costs.

  >  Jeff Lawson(1) --- 8,623,617 --- 11.9%

How pathetic is this? Around 90% of the company is taken by the vulture capitalists and you, as a founder, only get to keep 12%. Bill Gates at the time of Microsoft's IPO had around 50% of the company.