Wait till they find out that it was the financial industry hiring CS grads in droves, and that it was the quants who figured out that mortgage-backed securities couldn't go south.
It sounds to me like Google wants to be a super bookmarking service, where I can go directly to my favorite urls -- in fact, doesn't Google actually want to sync my bookmarks for me?
But what about the urls I don't know?
I often search for things out of idle curiosity, and want a tidbit of information one time and one time only. I fear that the Google paradigm wants to take that away in exchange for assuring advertisers that buyers will be visiting the pages they offer users.
The domination of this advertising focus may ultimately destroy the value of the web by subordinating the notion relevance to the needs of merchandising. It's a tough situation. There's no money in making searching any better: Search only needs to be a little bit better than the second-best, and not at all under a monopoly.
Not to mention privacy. But luckily, I think the ability of data-mining -- whether Google's or the NSA's -- is way oversold.
As I skimmed the patent material, I began to wonder whether
Web advertising isn't living up the promises that have been made
Google needs bullet items for its patents slide for the next Wall St. Powerpoint presentation
They can really patent of system of tracking of words (ngrams, where n=1) when there've been thousands of papers in NLP and IR discussing every conceivable mechanism for handling ngrams for 10 years or 20 years?
Frankly I'm not impressed with the quality of any company's system to divine what I'm interested in -- not Netflix, not Amazon and not even Google. Isn't the purpose of a search engine to find what I ask for, and not do magic tricks about what I'm thinking?
When I can a.) call the White House and get a serious answer to a serious question, and b.) when I have a substantial amount of your trust that I'm telling you the truth, then I can do what big media does.
Without those, my story about the alien spacecraft in my backyard is equal to my story about the White House press conference.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait till they find out that it was the financial industry hiring CS grads in droves, and that it was the quants who figured out that mortgage-backed securities couldn't go south.
It sounds to me like Google wants to be a super bookmarking service, where I can go directly to my favorite urls -- in fact, doesn't Google actually want to sync my bookmarks for me?
But what about the urls I don't know?
I often search for things out of idle curiosity, and want a tidbit of information one time and one time only. I fear that the Google paradigm wants to take that away in exchange for assuring advertisers that buyers will be visiting the pages they offer users.
The domination of this advertising focus may ultimately destroy the value of the web by subordinating the notion relevance to the needs of merchandising. It's a tough situation. There's no money in making searching any better: Search only needs to be a little bit better than the second-best, and not at all under a monopoly.
Not to mention privacy. But luckily, I think the ability of data-mining -- whether Google's or the NSA's -- is way oversold.
As I skimmed the patent material, I began to wonder whether
Frankly I'm not impressed with the quality of any company's system to divine what I'm interested in -- not Netflix, not Amazon and not even Google. Isn't the purpose of a search engine to find what I ask for, and not do magic tricks about what I'm thinking?
When I can a.) call the White House and get a serious answer to a serious question, and b.) when I have a substantial amount of your trust that I'm telling you the truth, then I can do what big media does.
Without those, my story about the alien spacecraft in my backyard is equal to my story about the White House press conference.