Slashdot Mirror


Imagining the Google Future

Lester67 writes "Business 2 put a bunch of big brains together to give us a peek at Google from 2015 to 2105. "Will it succumb to hubris and flame out like so many of its predecessors? Or will it grow into an omnipresent, omnipotent force--not just on Wall Street or the Web, but in society? We put the question to scientists, consultants, former Google employees, and tech visionaries like Ray Kurzweil and Stephen Wolfram. They responded with well-argued, richly detailed, and sometimes scary visions of a Google future." "

44 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. One Day Too Early by imoou · · Score: 4, Informative

    I guess the article would not have been published a day later, as the sky is falling down as we speak.

    The scary part is -- "Google Disappoints With 86% Higher Fourth Quarter Revenue", I think an "Even" between "Disappoints" and "With" would be appropriate. That's the problem, everyone has high expectation on Google now that even one slight mistake will be scrutinized and punished.

    A year ago, people were finding (or creating) reasons to buy Google shares, now people are finding excuses to sell those shares.

    1. Re:One Day Too Early by Sen.NullProcPntr · · Score: 4, Interesting
      That's the problem, everyone has high expectation on Google now that even one slight mistake will be scrutinized and punished.

      Was it a mistake or are they "playing by their own rules"?
      From TFA:

      Co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have always insisted they will run their 7-year-old company the way they want, even if it means ignoring stock market pressures to hit a widely watched earnings target.
      Of course playing by your own rules on Wall Street may be a mistake.
    2. Re:One Day Too Early by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I tried googling for that story but couldn't find it. Weird!

    3. Re:One Day Too Early by Surt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The key problem is that their stock is way overvalued in terms of ordinary stock price/earnings ratio. That's based on two things: market insanity, and rational belief that google will be able to deliver enough earnings to improve the ratio in the future. When google isn't delivering enough evidence that it will have massive earnings in the future, both camps sell.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  2. Reminds me of Epic by OverlordQ · · Score: 3, Informative

    Somebody did a flash thingger kinda like this before.

    EPIC 2014

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  3. Um by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where was google 10 years ago?
    Google will either drastically change (do you thnk you can grow as big as MSoft and keep your don't be evil thing?) or they will become less relevant.
    The real key, is how will the internet change in 10 years, and how will google fit into that...

    --
    And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    1. Re:Um by jferris · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Exactly. And Google can do one of two things.

      First, they could adapt to change, much like every always does. Or, they could be the change. If they define what is changing, it puts them in the same position of power that Microsoft has been in.

      What I consider to be a distinct advantage for Google, if they can pull of the same thing, is that there is no explicit ownership of the Internet. Users are more likely to have a choice, and it is that choice that dictates the success of a business or an idea. If it is true, it just goes to show how good of a job Google really has done, already.

      --
      You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
  4. sure ... google will be around in 2015, right by Surt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I mean come on, does anyone believe they'll last another 9 years? They have basically no meaningful assets. A bunch of computers, some code, and an algorithm. They could be put out of business in a year by any of hundreds of software companies. Their stock dropped 1/5th of its value in a day when investors heard they fell below expectations on earnings!

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    1. Re:sure ... google will be around in 2015, right by Surt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, having finished the article, I discover that indeed, one of their predictions is 'Google dead in 2020'. Looked to be the most rational sounding future to me.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:sure ... google will be around in 2015, right by rjstanford · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One point I'd like to make -

      Their stock did not drop 20% of its value. It dropped 20% of its price. Unless you truly believe that Google, its assets, revenue stream, et cetera, have no inherent value. The company is the same company that it was before the price drop. If you're buying shares because you believe in its ability to make money over the long term, this price drop was a Good Thing.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    3. Re:sure ... google will be around in 2015, right by zfractal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They have a name that can be easily recognized by just about anyone that uses the Internet (and even many that don't).... that alone is worth quite a bit.

      They have a lot of (paying) customers, that's also worth something.

      They have some pretty bright people working for them.

      I think it's a little bit more than a bunch of computers, some code and an algorithm.

    4. Re:sure ... google will be around in 2015, right by MasterOfUniverse · · Score: 2, Insightful
      hey have basically no meaningful assets. A bunch of computers, some code, and an algorithm.They could be put out of business in a year by any of hundreds of software companies.

      How is that different from any other software company? And the comment about being put out of business by hundreds of other companies can be applied to almost any industry...

      --
      "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."--Howard Zinn
    5. Re:sure ... google will be around in 2015, right by corbettw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Their stock did not drop 20% of its value. It dropped 20% of its price. Unless you truly believe that Google, its assets, revenue stream, et cetera, have no inherent value.

      I think you're confusing "book value" with "market value". Those are two distinct items. So, yes, Google's stock value (eg, market value) did drop 20%, even if its book value (all those other things you mentioned) remained essentially unmoved.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  5. Google could bring about the Singularity by ikewillis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They have the most computing power of anyone on earth. They're trying to sort the world's information. What better to do that with than strong AI?

    1. Re:Google could bring about the Singularity by vertinox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They have the most computing power of anyone on earth. They're trying to sort the world's information. What better to do that with than strong AI?

      When I was reading "Age of Spiritual Machines", Ray Kurzweil gave an example of "evolution" AI that basically brute forces the stock market by creating simulations based off certain criteria that would determine whether or not to purchase a stock. The simulatons that picks stocks that raised in priced lived, and all the others died. Then those surviors would have their code replicated a couple billion times and then each of those new versions would have the code slightly replicated and the next round of evolution would happen.

      It occurred to me that if one could build a machine that could have each of the programs check all pages on the internet for changes in criteria (as in CNN reported business made such a profit or bad comments on forums about certain companies), but then I realized this would take a search engine as big as google to do this...

      But then it dawned on me that what if google is already doing this? I mean they basically have constant caching of the internet. If they wanted to, they could write an algorythim to look at all this data and determine what patterns cause certain stocks to rise and then once they've trained a box to do this then they could litterly consume all other companies.

      Maybe a bit far fetched, but a company could do it... Google has the resources now to.

      (disclaimer, I maybe a bit biased about the whole singularity thing)

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  6. Google Robots by ribuck · · Score: 4, Funny
    For a peek into the future of Google, see the Google Robot FAQ.

    It's a strange combination of plausible and frightening.

  7. 5000 Worthless PhDs? by quokkapox · · Score: 4, Insightful
    They have basically no meaningful assets.

    They've got 5000 PhDs. Such a group may not be able to turn on a dime and innovate themselves out of a rut at the slightest hint of competition (like Microsoft keeps doing) but they're not exactly a gaggle of worthless lackeys, either.

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    1. Re:5000 Worthless PhDs? by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They've got 5000 PhDs . . . a gaggle of worthless lackeys

      I've probably known that many PhDs in my life, and; oddly enough, that's exactly the phrase to describe them that usually comes to mind.

      On the other hand one of the most worthwhile human beings I've had the pleasure to discourse with had no degree at all, having earned the dubious distinction of being thrown out of Harvard. . .twice.

      Oh, and having a molecule named after him.

      Credentials don't mean as much as you appear to think they do. Taken en masse 5000 PhDs just means that the bullshit gets piled even higher and deeper.

      KFG

    2. Re:5000 Worthless PhDs? by Dukael_Mikakis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The PhDs aren't worthless. Or rather the people with PhDs aren't worthless, they're very valuable. But as I said in a previous post, Google, Microsoft, and one poor office chair all know that having 5000 PhDs today doesn't mean you'll have 5000 PhDs tomorrow. On top of that, PhDs are a renewable resource. Google doesn't control their own PhDs or the ability of competitors to acquire PhDs, which means long-term they can't claim a competitive advantage from it.

      But for right now, yeah, all that talent is great for Google. The article's talking about the future. A hundred years out.

    3. Re:5000 Worthless PhDs? by caffeinemessiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You sound a trifle bitter, and your argument is the same one used for the college degree vs. hard working high school dropout issue. But perhaps my biggest problem with your comment is that you seem to associate Ph.D.s with inherently smarter people. As you've rightfully pointed out, that claim is likely to be pure B.S. However, what the *average* Ph.D. CAN do that the *average* Bucky Fuller CANNOT do is bridge the gap between academia and industry. Note that we're talking averages here -- you're likely to find some Bucky's who can do what Ph.D. can do and some Ph.D.s who cannot do what Bucky can do. However, any Ph.D. (at least those employed by Google) has spent several years wrangling with the state of the art in the field and furthermore, has contributed originality to the FIELD. They are in a much better position to analyze academic developments in the field, EXTEND those developments to the project at hand and figure out how to integrate them into product in a commercial sense. Now if Bucky had chosen to get his Ph.D. (or at least masters) and survived the rigors of graduate school, he would be able to do the same. But Ph.D.s have put in the time, the pain and like it or not -- are more intellectually rigorous than your *AVERAGE* (keyword) Bucky with a bachelors. So no, 5000 Ph.D.s employed by Google -- and these are likely to be leading figures in their respective fields -- is NOT a bad investment. At the very, very least, they know more and can think more critically than their bachelor counterparts. To use a terrible military analogy, anyone can be a marine, but only if they put in the time, the training, survive the rigors and finish the program. But not everyone can perform like a marine, although *SOME* intuitively gifted individuals might.

      --
      An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
    4. Re:5000 Worthless PhDs? by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You sound a trifle bitter

      Not at all, but I can understand how, in an environment couched in overly polite language, mannerisms rather than manners, "straight shooting" might come across that way.

      Note that we're talking averages here

      Exactly. Gaggle.

      . . .you seem to associate Ph.D.s with inherently smarter people.

      I'm not at all sure you how you come to that conclusion, since, as you rightly point out I rightly point out that isn't case. In fact, it's about half my case in a nutshell.

      However, what the *average* Ph.D. CAN do that the *average* Bucky Fuller CANNOT do is bridge the gap between academia and industry.

      At the moment the bridges over the gap between academia and industry are almost entirely being built where they shouldn't be while the bridges going where they should are being burned. Industry is only too pleased to supply the gasoline and matches.

      As a result there is starting to be quite little of value to be found in either place as academia regresses to the industrial mean and thus academia has less and less of value to give to industry other than labor.

      I'm also getting a bit of amusement out of the idea of an "average" Buckey Fuller.

      . . .has contributed originality to the FIELD.

      Have you actually read a doctoral thesis lately? Originality does not imply value.

      You understand, don't you, that the Google search engine itself is a purely accidental byproduct of some bright kids fooling around with something that interested them intensely?

      5000 PhDs likely couldn't have accomplished the task.

      KFG

  8. I see a future that consists solely of by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 4, Funny

    Micro$oft, Google & Taco Bell.

    Be Well..

  9. Stolen From Author by Emrikol · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://www.365tomorrows.com/09/12/the-nine-billion -names-of-god/

    The Nine Billion Names Of God
    by Kathy Kachelries
    September 12th, 2005
    After three hours, the old man in front of me had worked his way through six beers, in addition to every help desk joke I'd already heard. The cupholder. The any key. The write click. These are the stories people tell, now. These are the fish that got away.

    "Let me ask you something," the man said. I didn't argue. One of the first tricks I learned about being a bartender is to make them think you're interested.

    "Have you ever created a web site?"

    I shook my head.

    "Not at all? Not even one of those geocities things?"

    "Nope."

    "What about a blog? Or an ebay About Me page? You didn't even have an AOL site or something?"

    "Do I look like an AOL user to you?" For the record, I don't think AOL even has access numbers in the valley anymore. "I'm sure I have something, somewhere," I said, realizing that I was jeopardizing my tips. Besides, I had a distant memory of a single Angelfire page back in middle school.

    "You know what Google is?"

    "Yes," I said. I was running low on patience.

    "No, I mean, do you really know? More than just the site?"

    Reluctantly, I shook my head.

    "You ever meet anyone who worked for them?"

    "Don't think so."

    "You haven't. Nobody works for them anymore."

    I shrugged, and took the man's empty pint. I didn't offer to refill it.

    "They're self-contained. It's all automated, in there. It's underground."

    I nudged the basket of pretzels in his direction. "Why don't you eat something?" I suggested. He shook his head with so much force that I thought he might knock himself off of the stool.

    "Listen. Hear me out. You know how Google works," he said, but didn't want for a response. "They cache things, right? Like they send out these spiders and take pictures of everything on the web, so when you're searching, you're not even searching the internet."

    I've heard that before, but it never made much of a difference to me. "Same thing, though," I said.

    "You ever wonder why Google doesn't cache it's own searches?"

    "They program around it."

    "No. That's what you think. That's what everyone thinks. But it started back when Google was just a thesis project, back when it was just a drop in the data sea. No one thought to stop it back then. That web site you had, the one you forgot about. Almost everyone's got one of those, right? But Google doesn't forget. Google's studied that thing so many times that it's studied its own caches of you. What do you figure happens, when a site gets so big that it's bigger than the internet?"

    "It's still a part of the internet, though."

    "No. Now, the internet is a part of Google."

    The man had a point. I nodded.

    "Here's the thing. Google has memorized who you are. It's memorized all of us, through those little forgotten bits that we leave behind like breadcrumbs. And what's more important, it's memorized it's own idea of you. Google is omniscient. It's omniscient and omnipotent. When it cached its cache for the first time, back in 1994, that's when Google realized what it was."

    Gradually, it dawned on me what the man was getting at. "You think it's sentient."

    "I know it's sentient."

    "How?"

    He smiled, but it seemed kind of empty. "Me and Google go way back. But what I'm saying is," he continued, "It knows us. All of us. It is us."

    For the first time, the man fell silent. He touched his finger to the bar and began tracing circles in the condensation, apparently lost in thought.

    "Think about that website you created, okay? That website will last forever, do you understand? That website is echoing through cyberspace. It's one of the nine billion names of God."

    (If you mod up, Mod up Funny so I get no Karma)

    --
    You're all bastards!
  10. 2105 by thefirelane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly, does that really even make sense?

    I bet people sat around and wondered what the Carnegie Steel of 1995 would be like. I'm sure they had fun, but it probably wasn't worth the effort.

    1. Re:2105 by dotpavan · · Score: 2, Funny
      Honestly, does that really even make sense?..I bet people sat around and

      you forgot to add smoking pot..

    2. Re:2105 by heatdeath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I bet people sat around and wondered what the Carnegie Steel of 1995 would be like. I'm sure they had fun, but it probably wasn't worth the effort.

      Haha, yeah, or standard oil. Oh wait, if it weren't split up into 34 different companies, several of which are the largest and most profitable companies in the world now (Exxon-mobile has the largest profit of any corporation in the world), it would be a freaking scary company. The daughter companies combined have an annual revenue of well over a trillion dollars. Can you imagine a world in which they'd been able to leverage their monopoly?

      I think back then, a few people thought about the future, and that's why they decided to break it up.

      --
      I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
  11. Predicting the future eh? Put some logic into it. by MindPrison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google is all about information. This is worth a lot of money, and can be used to just about anything, what else is new?

    My worry is not related to Google being evil, its more in the power of the individual. No man should have access to all information about another man. Personally I dont believe in Google being Evil as such, but experience and history shows that if you put man into a position where he has the choice of being all powerful ruling and controlling the other party or just sticking to morality and ethics he will chose control over ethics in the blink of an eye.

    Its good to see the general public so concerned about what Google does, this means you are not willingly giving up your privacy just like that and wont let anyone get away with bullying your life around. Now this sounds awful paranoid and crusader-like... but its really not. The action we take today - will affect everyone tomorrow, so better be safe, take precautions now rather than say "oh...its probably all okay" and have a disaster unforseen in the future.

    Every time Ive been paraniod Ive been right, that doesnt mean that Im right about everything - it simply means - if you can think it - its probably feasible and doable. So better safe than sorry.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  12. How about strong IA? by quokkapox · · Score: 4, Funny
    We'll see IA (Intelligence Augmentation) facilitated and enabled by global networked computing infrastructure, first.

    Which is scarier than strong AI, if you think about it. A small group of evil superintelligent humans is more dangerous than a suddenly self-aware entity living in datacenters we can disconnenct and unplug if we notice anything weird going on. I hope a couple of PhDs at google are on top of detecting these sorts of things before they get out of hand.

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
  13. My only question is... by Rodness · · Score: 3, Funny

    In what year is Google going to enslave and exterminate the human race, and then send cyborgs back through time to retroactively crush the resistance?

  14. Google will replace US Mail/Cell / Telephones/Maps by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Given that Google is so well known and widely used today, Google might eventually create a gadget replace most mail, newspapers, magazines, maps and telephone calls.
    They already offer tons of services for free, and eventually will branch out to mobile gadgetry.

    In 2010 you will just carry around your own pocket Google Hand Unit and instantly communicate by voice or text with anyone anywhere, plot your map to find a route, and then read the news/web when you go to meet up with them.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  15. Two things we can be certain of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    1) We haven't a clue

    2) It's going to be fun

  16. Defence Contractor? by funkmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm waiting for Google to become a defence contractor and start working on the ballastic missle shield. They could call it GOBBLE: (G)oogle (O)rbiting (B)lastic (B)ombardment (L)ongrange (E)liminator. Besides the obvious purposes, GOBBLE could respond in real-time to subversive search terms. Like someone searching for LOLITA in Utah would be blasted by a laser in space.

  17. Yahoo! by Anonymouse+Cownerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember 10 years ago, when Yahoo was what Google is today? People don't really care for Yahoo anymore. In 10 years from now, someone else would have de-throned Google, and we'll wonder how we could live without them. Google would no longer be king, and they won't matter any more.

    --
    http://www.rayn.net . Funny. Stuff.
    1. Re:Yahoo! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People don't really care for Yahoo anymore.

      So I was playing with the new Yahoo! maps beta. I wanted to send a map to a friend. There's no obvious way to get a linkable URL to a resultant map page. Google has that right at the top. Yahoo wants to hide everything in frames. Google use images and a nice javascript tiling engine. Yahoo publishes to flash. They have a 'mail a friend' feature that doesn't include the map information, at least in the plain text alternative.

      So, somebody at Yahoo thinks these are good decisions. If Google can manage to not hire these kinds of bozos maybe they have a chance.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  18. At least they didn't ask John C. Dvorak by FishandChips · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The articles would have had more bite if they'd included one or two written from a different perspective.They all come over as the ideas of comfortably-off American professionals doing OK thank you. But if it's true that the coming century will belong to China and perhaps India then Google's eventual fate may just as easily be decided by those outside the USA as those inside it. It would have been interesting to read a SE Asian or Indian journalist's take. After all, in twenty years' time Google could be owned by a foreign corporation.

    Just my 2 cents, but Google's dream of becoming the world's information provider doesn't look as if it will come off. People have seen the trap already - no corporation can be trusted, so it's insane to give one that kind of power - and Google's mistaken moves in China have blown off the remaining gloss on Do No Evil. From now on, it may be a much harder grind for them, and if the information issues get too hot they could easily end up being regulated into a corner. The last of the articles alludes to the huge trouble and loss of trust even one hacking scandal could cause them.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
    1. Re:At least they didn't ask John C. Dvorak by Twinbee · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Google's mistaken moves in China have blown off the remaining gloss on Do No Evil

      A lots been said on it I know, but just to conclude that they did not make that decision lightly. See the Google Blog.

      For all you know (and let's face it, neither of us has a clue), maybe it is the fastest way to globally uncensored speech. We'll see you eat your words if in 5-10 years, China accepts the uncensored Google. Oh, and one other thing, Yahoo or other search engines aren't THAT much worse than Google, so China wouldn't have been missing an awful lot. Thus they would not have cared, and kept their censoring policy anyway.
      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  19. Google 2105? No, it's Goole 2084. by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Funny
  20. More like "Stolen From Arthur" by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Nine Billion Names of God

    By Arthur Clarke

    (originally published 1953)

    "This is a slightly unusual request," said Dr. Wagner, with what he hoped was commendable restraint. "As far as I know, it's the first time anyone's been asked to supply a Tibetan monastery with an automatic sequence computer. I don't wish to be inquisitive, but I should hardly thought that your --ah-- establishment had much use for such a machine. Could you explain just what you intend to do with it?"

    "Gladly," replied the lama, readjusting his silk robe and carefully putting away the slide rule he had been using for currency conversions. "Your Mark V computer can carry out any routine mathematical operation involving up to ten digits. However, for our work we are interested in letters, not numbers. As we wish you to modify the output circuits, the machine will be printing words, not columns of figures."

    "I don't understand . . ."

    "This is a project on which we have been working for the last three centuries -- since the lamasery was founded, in fact. It is somewhat alien to your way of thought, so I hope you will listen with an open mind while I explain it."

    "Naturally."

    "It is really quite simple. We have been compiling a list which shall contain all the possible names of God."

    "I beg your pardon?"

    "We have reason to believe," continued the lama imperturbably, "that all such names can be written with not more than nine letters in an alphabet we have devised."

    "And you have been doing this for three centuries?"

    "Yes. We expected it would take us about fifteen thousand years to complete the task."

    "Oh." Dr. Wagner looked a little dazed. "Now I see why you wanted to hire one of our machines. But exactly what is the purpose of this project?"

    The lama hesitated for a fraction of a second, and Wagner wondered if he had offended him. If so, there was no trace of annoyance in the reply.

    "Call it ritual, if you like, but it's a fundamental part of our belief. All the many names of the Supreme Being -- God, Jehovah, Allah, and so on -- they are only man-made labels. There is a philosophical problem of some difficulty here, which I do not propose to discuss, but somewhere among all the possible combinations of letters, which can occur, are what one may call the real names of God. By systematic permutation of letters, we have been trying to list them all."

    "I see. You've been starting at AAAAAAAAA . . . and working up to ZZZZZZZZZ . . ."

    "Exactly -- though we use a special alphabet of our own. Modifying the electromatic typewriters to deal with this is, of course, trivial. A rather more interesting problem is that of devising suitable circuits to eliminate ridiculous combinations. For example, no letter must occur more than three times in succession."

    "Three? Surely you mean two."

    "Three is correct. I am afraid it would take too long to explain why, even if you understood our language."

    "I'm sure it would," said Wagner hastily. "Go on."

    "Luckily it will be a simple matter to adapt your automatic sequence computer for this work, since once it has been programmed properly it will permute each letter in turn and print the result. What would have taken us fifteen thousand years it will be able to do in a thousand days."

    Dr. Wagner was scarcely conscious of the faint sounds from the Manhattan streets far below. He was in a different world, a world of natural, not man-made, mountains. High up in their remote aeries these monks had been patiently at work, generation after generation, compiling their lists of meaningless words. Was there any limit to the follies of mankind? Still, he must give no hint of his inner thoughts. The customer was always right . . .

    "There's no doubt," replied the doctor, "that we can modify the Mark V to print lists of this nature. I'm much more worried about the problem of installation and maintenance. Getting out to Tibet, in these days, is n

    --
    The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:More like "Stolen From Arthur" by mykdavies · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're implying (or that's my reading) that this story was plagiarised, but I'm sure that Kathy wrote the story as an homage to Arthur C. Clarke's story, and expected that her readers would recognise it as such (especially as it won a 'retrospective'(?!) Hugo a couple of years ago).

      I certainly read the story in that way, and enjoyed the story more for its resonances, and how it played with the original, than I would have done without that understanding. I think that SF is very often clearly "of its time" and responds better than other genres to re-interpretation.

      On the topic of cartoonists writing philosophy, the least said the better!

      --
      The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
  21. Transcending search, etc. by ezpei · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The company has so much f-ing cash right now that anyone who attempts to analyze it on the basis of current businesses instead of potential acquisitions or new development is basically looking backward. Between the cash they have and the capital they could raise if they EVER INCURRED ANY DEBT, they can buy/build almost anything they want and go in almost any direction from here.

    Further, we need to remember what Microsoft is: a marketing company. They buy other peoples' products then remarket them as their own after making it impossible to own or use one without the others. Who are we to say Google won't do likewise or better?

    Speculation is futile. You either believe they're smart or you don't. After that, you still have no shot at pricing the stock...it's a pure Keynesian beauty contest.

  22. Re:meh by monkeydo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Watch the movie and then get back to us.

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  23. Google OS by alucinor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think Google is building an operating system right in front of our very eyes ... their search algorithms are its kernel, people and content are it's resources and processes, the search field is the command line and user-interface. Granted, this is a liberal view of an operating system, but to me, the operating system is just a sort of catch-all phrase for describing the software that interfaces people with technology. Our own hands were the first "operating system" when they picked up a rock to put it to some purpose.

    But while the need to display images will surely never go away, I do imagine a future in which GUIs are replaced by a renaissance in the CLI (command line). What goes around comes around. But in this paradigm, the CLI performs natural language processing, and also can understand spoken commands as well as typed. If Google ever does an "OS" I seriously believe it will be something like this.

    The future is not so much in "operating systems" as in "artificial intelligence", which is really just a buzzword for search.

    We'll see the first signs of this once Google Desktop starts being used in more robust ways, like as an application launcher.

    --
    random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
  24. You will know when the future has reached us... by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...when you search in google "how to reverse entropy", you press "i feel lucky" and the resulting web page only says "LET THERE BE LIGHT" (there is an interesting twist to the original asimov story in The last query, suspiciously related to google).

  25. No meaningful assets??? by shinghei · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Have you actually looked at their financial statements? They have close to $4B in their bank! Cash can be used to either acquire other companies or repurchase stock to reduce the number of outstanding shares. And their shareholder's equity has gone from $2.9B in 2004 to $9.4B. That's a three-fold increase! Google's stock price a year ago was at ~$200. Shouldn't it be worth more than $600 then?