The responses above make me sad for how predictable/. responses have become - if its Google and China's not mentioned then they must be right, if its telcos, or MS or the Patent Office it must be bad..
A few posters are near the target, there is only one motivation and thats future money. Google has to get some more substance behind its business, as one day its page hits will fall, and the advertising it generates will drop off.
The key, and has been for a long time, is content. If you own / control content that people want then the money will follow. Google has quasi-content in that they rely upon everyone else to generate it, but make it easy to access - as long as you are on the first couple of pages. However they want more - and high quaility video streaming of content is a way to get into really big ticket money - what if Google bought the rights to Premiership football (for the UK) or the Superbowl in US - all exclusivly available on Google Video for the sum of $$$
So Google needs to do a couple of things No 1 - restrict is competitors and No2 protect its access to consumers.
Telcos have a problem that they drove data prices rock bottom, supported by their PSTN revenues, but now are seeing the PSTN revenues disapear as voice just gets shifted to data - so they need to move into the content business as well. If a telco builds data centers at network hubs that already have Gb's of connectivity into them it makes good sense, they don't need to bias traffic - they just charge Google for the Gb's of access they will need - or charge a premium for carrying multicast traffic.
Why? Well, funnily enough to carry that much data costs telcos money - and that money is going to come from one of two places - the content provider, or the consumer - if you restrict the ability of telco's to charge the content providers appropriately for the traffic, then the only place they can get it from is the consumer - you and me. So what happens is we end up paying more for our connections, and the content providers get even richer as we subsidise the bandwidth they should be paying for and we still have to endure the advertising that Google is getting paid to provide - moiney that should be paying for bandwidth.
Earlier in this appalingly written, badly spelt rambling rant I mentioned that content is key, Google have to be very careful how they position the whole neutrality piece lest it come back and bite them. Google is so pervasive that if you have content, you need to rank highly on Google to get people to see it - how do you do that? Well you take your chance on the secret alogrithm, or you pay some money and still take your chance - so how is that different from a telco saying to Google 'sure you can take your chance with everything else or you can pay some extra and be further up the page^H^H^H^H QoS queue?
My predication is that in 5 years time Google will be seen as very bad thing for real freedom and access to information - lets hope/. survives so I can point to the archives and let the inevitable flamee's have a chance to re-consider their views - assuming the then all-pervasive google-bar or google brower doesn't censor it..
Re:GameCube Info Sources -They call him Flipper...
on
GameCube Hits the Street
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I like the fact the called the graphics chip flipper - reference back to the Dolphin code name.
It takes me back to Sid and Fat Angus, and of course the rock lobster motherboard of Commodore days...
Re:Finally, Finally, an evil Cyberspy!
on
Real Cyber-Spying
·
· Score: 1
But I thought that Airbus was trouncing Boeing at the moment....
1) Who is goign to be the first in the neighbourhood to get the connection, and then have everybody else use what they are paying for? It is only goign to work if sufficent people are prepared to pay and support those unwilling/unable to pay.
2) If providers notice that take up of connections are reduced, and those line they have sold are max'ing out on bandwidth they will either increase the price for their services, or they will introduce usage based billing.
If you control the tap to the water main you will be able influence, and measure the flow of water!
Call me cynicall, but could it be that the people calling for the standard to be hacked have their own product which could provide the security, which will 'suddenly' appear once the competition has been cleared. Sounds like a fair investment of $10000 to me.
R.
Agreed, and there was always the excitement of would it be a white crayon or black crayon, would there be blue dice or some coloured ones, and then the subsequent gouging out of the wax when under a tense situation...
Either they are going to use Linux as the base to the PDA, or they are planning an IPO and want to be assured that there share price will rocket, just think if the thing could do E-Commerce, and used the Transmeta chip as well.....
Pushing the non-ethical uses to one side, as we move to global audiences viewing the same events the technology can be used to provide localised branding - so for example you would buy the advertising space/hording in the same way, but would then apply the appropriate image for the country.
It would also allow for situations where advertising rules (such as for cigarettes) differ in many countries - the prime example being the FIA Forumla One Championships.
The removing of competitors logos aught to come under some ethical guidelines, but could provide new pitches for the TV station - "Watch us, we show it like it _really_ is." - or a "What the camera really saw" show.
Either way we all need to parse information we receive through any media through a reality check before taking it as fact. The real issue is that society is increasingly losing the ability to do this, which is why this technology could present such an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
The responses above make me sad for how predictable /. responses have become - if its Google and China's not mentioned then they must be right, if its telcos, or MS or the Patent Office it must be bad..
/. survives so I can point to the archives and let the inevitable flamee's have a chance to re-consider their views - assuming the then all-pervasive google-bar or google brower doesn't censor it..
A few posters are near the target, there is only one motivation and thats future money. Google has to get some more substance behind its business, as one day its page hits will fall, and the advertising it generates will drop off.
The key, and has been for a long time, is content. If you own / control content that people want then the money will follow. Google has quasi-content in that they rely upon everyone else to generate it, but make it easy to access - as long as you are on the first couple of pages. However they want more - and high quaility video streaming of content is a way to get into really big ticket money - what if Google bought the rights to Premiership football (for the UK) or the Superbowl in US - all exclusivly available on Google Video for the sum of $$$
So Google needs to do a couple of things No 1 - restrict is competitors and No2 protect its access to consumers.
Telcos have a problem that they drove data prices rock bottom, supported by their PSTN revenues, but now are seeing the PSTN revenues disapear as voice just gets shifted to data - so they need to move into the content business as well. If a telco builds data centers at network hubs that already have Gb's of connectivity into them it makes good sense, they don't need to bias traffic - they just charge Google for the Gb's of access they will need - or charge a premium for carrying multicast traffic.
Why? Well, funnily enough to carry that much data costs telcos money - and that money is going to come from one of two places - the content provider, or the consumer - if you restrict the ability of telco's to charge the content providers appropriately for the traffic, then the only place they can get it from is the consumer - you and me. So what happens is we end up paying more for our connections, and the content providers get even richer as we subsidise the bandwidth they should be paying for and we still have to endure the advertising that Google is getting paid to provide - moiney that should be paying for bandwidth.
Earlier in this appalingly written, badly spelt rambling rant I mentioned that content is key, Google have to be very careful how they position the whole neutrality piece lest it come back and bite them. Google is so pervasive that if you have content, you need to rank highly on Google to get people to see it - how do you do that? Well you take your chance on the secret alogrithm, or you pay some money and still take your chance - so how is that different from a telco saying to Google 'sure you can take your chance with everything else or you can pay some extra and be further up the page^H^H^H^H QoS queue?
My predication is that in 5 years time Google will be seen as very bad thing for real freedom and access to information - lets hope
I like the fact the called the graphics chip flipper - reference back to the Dolphin code name.
It takes me back to Sid and Fat Angus, and of course the rock lobster motherboard of Commodore days...
But I thought that Airbus was trouncing Boeing at the moment....
Its better than that, you can use it to make sure that your friends and collegues have not got any cooler gadgets than you have - a geeks dream..
A couple of problems with the model:
1) Who is goign to be the first in the neighbourhood to get the connection, and then have everybody else use what they are paying for? It is only goign to work if sufficent people are prepared to pay and support those unwilling/unable to pay.
2) If providers notice that take up of connections are reduced, and those line they have sold are max'ing out on bandwidth they will either increase the price for their services, or they will introduce usage based billing.
If you control the tap to the water main you will be able influence, and measure the flow of water!
Call me cynicall, but could it be that the people calling for the standard to be hacked have their own product which could provide the security, which will 'suddenly' appear once the competition has been cleared. Sounds like a fair investment of $10000 to me. R.
Agreed, and there was always the excitement of would it be a white crayon or black crayon, would there be blue dice or some coloured ones, and then the subsequent gouging out of the wax when under a tense situation...
Do we all get to take our d20's and d4's to the cinema and get to roll our own endings?
Either they are going to use Linux as the base to the PDA, or they are planning an IPO and want to be assured that there share price will rocket, just think if the thing could do E-Commerce, and used the Transmeta chip as well.....
Pushing the non-ethical uses to one side, as we move to global audiences viewing the same events the technology can be used to provide localised branding - so for example you would buy the advertising space/hording in the same way, but would then apply the appropriate image for the country.
It would also allow for situations where advertising rules (such as for cigarettes) differ in many countries - the prime example being the FIA Forumla One Championships.
The removing of competitors logos aught to come under some ethical guidelines, but could provide new pitches for the TV station - "Watch us, we show it like it _really_ is." - or a "What the camera really saw" show.
Either way we all need to parse information we receive through any media through a reality check before taking it as fact. The real issue is that society is increasingly losing the ability to do this, which is why this technology could present such an issue.