Slashdot Mirror
Does Google = God?
lgreco writes "In an op/ed for the NYT, Thomas Friedman wonders "Is Google God?" Interesting article that disseminates things mostly known to and hopefully well understood by the Slashdot readership. The fact that such commentary made it to the NYT op/ed pages is remarkable." It's the NYT, so a free registration is required.
since google news does not need to register
2 9F RIE.html?ex=1057464000&en=5a99f13790700f88&ei=5062 &partner=GOOGLE[/url]
you can be god, too:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/opinion/
"... only one-third come from inside the U.S. The rest are in 88 other languages."
Americans may speak funny but generally its still known as english. Amazingly it's actually spoken outside of the US as well.
I mean, my first reaction to the question "Is Google God?" is "No... Next topic!" Presumably the article is asking something at least slightly more compelling or interesting, but we have no idea of what that might be.
The site is supposed to be news for nerds... not sound bites for nerds. Although I guess that is a lot of what passes for news in the States.
Note the last paragraph about the effectiveness of Osama bin Laden's recruiting videos, and the possibility of targeting them precisely via broadband video. Brrrrrr.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
So what is that supposed to mean? Only the english language is used in US searches or that outside the US there are no english searches? Maybe the assumption is that an english submission must be US-based.
I stopped reading the article at that point. I'm like that. Maybe I have some kind of disorder.
Political Correctness is doubleplusungood.
Summary : google + wireless = inforamtion available for everybody everywhere. They compare it to omniscience and thus gods (btw, where is the other part traditionnaly associated to gods, omnipotence :) ?).
Then they go on rambling that this will allow the bad guy to touch "more" the U.S. (what of the rest of the western world...?) and allow them unite quicker and better.
I think this is a "slow news" sunday, thus this [devoid of content] article went on slashdot...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
But that's not my point. My point is the comparison is quite ludicrous.
There is the disclaimer "little bit" in there, but even so, it feels a lot like Beowulfian "flyting" in the nasty "pay attention to me!" sense. Google may be wireless, but only when it piggy-backs on another, even vaster service, and even so, it's only such part of the time. Not to mention, as ability goes, it's not exactly omnipotent. And anyone who worships Google in more than a "Hey, I've got the toolbar" kind of way should probably reconsider their choice of deity. As dieties go, Google is probably a bit more deserving than some other common choices today, of course, but is still on the "Not such a great idea" side of the choices of "things, Things, dieties, and God's to worship."
Jeez Louise.. Terrorists will be using the interweb to organize more efficiently! Foreign people who hate use will be able to talk about us behind our backs! (No mention that the internet has done more to proliferate American culture and "values" than MTV or McDonalds, or that the internet can be, and actually is, used for good as well as evil..)
Don't get your panties in a wad, United States. Better start fearing your domestic Police State To Be!
OMFG! There's a knife next to my plate! What if a terrorist had sat down here!
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Did anyone else get a chill through there spine that at that EXACT same moment John Ashcroft was reading that article ?
... ... ... scary isnt it?
and that very soon there will be a senate commitee on Google and search engines?
stop! just think about that for a while...
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
Not only is it a fluff article, it was technically incorrect and seemed intent on perpetuating more mindless post 9/11 fear-mongering pap.
....gak....too much coffee.....
Verisign operating much of the Internet's infrastructure??? Please, spare me.
So, the article concludes that Google and Wi-Fi will bring the world together in omniscience all the while there are dark forces at work plotting to destroy us.
After reading this op-ed piece, The World Weekly news or the Onion seems a more credible source for gaining insights into world perspectives....
I've read Thomas Friedman's book, "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", and I can say the answer to that question is yes.
Thomas Friedman has a basic understanding that the 1990's saw major changes in the technological and social structure of the world. He uses this to make up sweeping trite statements about things that he doesn't really understand. Some of his statements are true, but he sugarcoats them and puts them in impressive terms that make them seem more impressive than they are.
For example, he has the famous statement: "Two nations with McDonald's have never gone to war with each other". Yes, that is true, but it actually means "advanced industrialized democracies don't go to war with each other", or perhaps "nation states no longer go to war with each other". But he puts it in flashy terms, and sounds like it is a magical formula.
"Is Google God" is his flashy way of saying "Is the internet a source of near endless information?". When you put it in those terms, then, well, yes, it is. But he gets away with being a serious writer by changing his words around and seeming to say something new.
It's people like him that make me wonder why Slashdotters ever bothered to complain about Jon Katz.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
However, the real point of the article is that in an increasingly linked world, it is more important than ever to be good world citizens.
Lord Rees Moag and James Davidson make this point in their book 'Sovereign Individual": large countries become increasingly vulnerable to small countries and organized groups because of the threats of cyber attacks, etc.
As this article points out, with the free flow of information, small groups can share information and form larger political and action groups.
Not to be political, but I was against the recent Iraq War because I think that it is a very bad idea to alienate other countries when we largely depend on the global "dollar standard" for hoarding money and purchasing oil to prop up our economy. I am a more than a little concerned that our turning our backs on the UN will cause us all kinds of problems in the future. (BTW, the US has vetoed 35 UN security council resolutions ssince 1970 - so, it was not so atypical for Russia, France, and Germany to threaten to veto one of our resolutions.
-Mark
Three quickies:
When people go around saying "Google is God", you know it's time to short their stock... oh shoot, they haven't even gone public yet!
If Microsoft's upcoming squashes Google, does that mean Microsoft is the new god? Or is it Satan?
And what does it tell you that despite its vastly superior powers, that nobody has equated Microsoft to God in the NY Times?
Just reading the tea leaves,
--LP
As for the post, God = Google therefore... ok.
It's pretty deep stuff and requires a few readings before you start to enjoy it. The time wasting and hopelessness says a lot about K5 (/. doesn't take itself seriously enough to be included in a comparison to this book.)
Laws are for people with no friends.
It's not remarkable that this made it to the NYT op/ed pages. Anything written by Thomas Friedman is going to make it. What's remarkable is that he chose to write about it.
Friedman has written three books that generally focus on economics and globalization. He's won three Pulitzer prizes. A few of the other posts are knocking this article as fluff, or knocking Friedman in general. Whatever your personal views, people listen to him.
What's striking to me is that he writes on large political-type issues - globalization, 9/11, Isreal. He's not a tech writer. The fact that he took the trouble to go tour Google and then write a column about it is evidence of how entrenched Google is in his non-techie world.
Yeah, the article is fluff. It's nothing but Friedman's impression and opinions. But it ran on the print version of the New York Times. If it ran on CNet, I'd blow it off. In NYT's op/ed, it's another story.
JJ
What Friedman is talking about, and has written about before, is globalization. Look at it this way, what are his goals for this article? He wants people to realize that, more than ever, the US is an equal partner in the world, that we need to be good listeners. Information is the great equalizer, right?
He is worried about a return to isolationist tendencies of the early 1900s. Is is worried, because it is no longer possible to isolate ourselve from the world. Of course, it was a bad idea back then, but that's another story.
Perhaps he is using FUD to convince people to listen to him, but in this case I think it for a good goal, encouraging the US to take more responsibilty for its actions present and past and realize that we cannot view the world as us and them.
After all, what better way to get people's ear these days then to discuss the terrorist threat?
Spencer Ogden
Sometimes this is a good thing. If I am curious about ultralight aircraft, or antique radios, or some other hobby with a limited number of enthusiasts I can quickly find a lot of information, join a group, and get involved.
But it also means that if my interests tend more toward alt.suicide.holiday or thinking the Jews have taken over the government, I could quickly find other people to reinforce those tendencies. Friedman concentrates on the most devastating aspect of this, and just because it's one end of a bell curve doesn't mean his point is wrong.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]