I've been ready to jump ship for awhile, but where's the competition? Cuil? DOA.. Bing? As an earlier poster mentioned, it's pretty hollow. Any other suggestions that can actually compete with Google's search quality (which granted has been diminishing which is why I'm ready to switch)?
Rent, utilities, taxes and other intangibles play into it too. But labor isn't cheap in the US compared to China. Compared to Japan, it's not so bad, which partly explains why Japanese auto makers have put so many factories in the US.
Here's an honest question: Why? What's wrong with the Oracle version of OO right now? Or is this a preemptive move in anticipation of silly licensing nonsense from Oracle in the future? Like I said this is an honest question. Thanks.
Wait - isn't the question "how to make a cool nuclear reaction that is net energy positive?"
That seems like new physics to me.. Maybe you'd call it new engineering, but since no one thinks this is possible within the current physics framework, I think it would involve new fundamentals, at least on par with high-temp superconduction.
Not that much different from sending along a do-not-track http header with your IP, is it?
I was also under the impression that you could register at FTC,if this was implemented, and advertisers would have to "wash" their tracking databases of any users listed there (users defined how, I don't know, maybe email). It doesn't stop the bottom feeders who won't pay attention to this database. At least in the telco space, the do not call registry has made a significant impact on telemarketing calls for folks who bother to register. Some fly-by-night telemarketers ignore it, but most legit ones actually play by the rules. I expect the same here -- legit big companies will wash their databases and remove your info.
Tracking data is often saved passively (by layers deeper in the stack - SQL, web server, etc) not actively - so it's not in the business layer near the HTTP headers, where you can put in an "IF" statement, at least in my experience. A lot of it is dumped in various logs that you can't always get a hold of easily while you have the HTTP context available, to prevent them being written. And you could push the HTTP headers or at least that one deeper into the stack for logging too, but that could involve some substantial engineering for some websites.
But I get your point that for stuff that is specifically marketing driven (like write an email to a database) if you see the DO_NOT_TRACK headers in the HTTP, then you just don't write the entry - pretty simple.
I like their way better which would work along the lines of a the central "do not call" registry. I register in one place and advertisers must wash their lists against these users. With an http header, I think the burden is higher to implement b/c you have to integrate it into your webstack. With a registry, you can keep all the data, but must wash it before you use it give it to the marketing dept for analysis. Seems easier to me anyway.
I think you think that I replied to Zerth - possibly/. was hiding the comment from Scrameustache which was who I was responding to. His comment was pretty funny..
Thanks - at first it seemed crazy to me that google doesn't do this already for us, but then their definition of spam and ours seems pretty different (overlaps on the obvious ones). Experts-exchange to me is the best example of this -- to me it's useless. I'm not paying for advice, so why show that one to me ever? We need SearchBlock (tm). Maybe I'll toy around this weekend..
You've got me thinking of what an "adblock" for google searches would look like. Hmm. If every google search POST is intercepted in the browser by this adblock tool and then stuffs a bunch of additional commands onto it:
So the search "maytag washing machine broken" would get turned into:
I wonder how many of those you can ship to google and still have it pay attention to them?
I guess alternatively you could suppress those results via CSS/Javascript when they are displayed, so you don't always see 10 results per page but sometimes only 5 or 6, b/c the others are bullshit sites..
Yeah really - and next some paranoid crackpot will be saying that Google is *scanning the air* recording electromagnetic signals from inside of people's houses. We need to get this population on better meds.
I'll just say that you'll *definitely* lose money on Kiva. It's a donation system that has some payback potential. My lossage over about 5 years of donating on the site is about 30%. It doesn't bother me as I'm able to help some folks and many do pay the loans off-- it beats the heck out of the ridiculous overhead that most big non-profits charge..
Agreed but that doesn't mean FB is going to be come the cash-printing monster that Google is. Wide spread adoption != massive profits, though it certainly helps. I can't see FB running out of cash to keep the servers running, but I have yet to see a hint of their Big Idea for a cash-printing model.
That said, I felt the same way about Google in the mid-90's before it became clear that an advertising marketplace and delivery system for them was the Big Idea (and it worked incredibly well).
Totally agree - how is FB going to make big $$? Google is an advertising monster. Does FB have a superior model to deliver ads to their customers? Right now their targeted ad delivery is a joke. Or maybe they have another big idea for revenue waiting in the wings. They might just end up being a basic info service, which could turn out to be not all that profitable.
I still can't figure out how they are going money. Granted I felt like this about Google in the late 90's until they demonstrated the stunning success of being an advertising broker and delivery engine. That was a very, very good idea.
What is Facebook's very very good idea for revenue? I haven't heard of it yet and revenue just disclosed suggests that they don't have it (yet). That makes me skeptical of their long term ability to become another google in terms of staggering profit lines. They've got everything they need except that very very good idea..
They could be just another Craigslist -- modest profits supporting a modest business, ad inifinitum. Lots of people will keep using them, but maybe they may never crack the major profit nut. Granted CL specifically doesn't try to make much money whereas FB wants to as bad as any of its competitors..
In my opinion (and WP's policy opinion as well) having inflammatory and slanted language in a supposedly neutral information repository is not in the public's interest.
I can't speak for WP, but I think this kind of language should be avoided in WP is the same reason I think troll comments should be ignored or modded out, on/.
They distract from the real issue which are the facts underlying the statement. A neutral, cited statement with the same assertions made by the above referenced inflammatory assertion would be great. Is this woman in fact responsible for hundreds or thousands of needless deaths? What authority has asserted that? Hopefully that authority will provide evidence, or at least back up the claim.
Calling someone a murderer who has in fact not been convicted of murder is also slanderous but that's maybe a whole other topic.
Does this help explain this side of the position? There are surely some legitimate reasons to permit this type of thing into a public encyclopedia (free, open, unfettered, etc) but the downsides far outweigh the benefits in my opinion (and apparently WP's).
The point is that the *can* do this. They're not opening up an iphone store. Android permits competition and Amazon is taking advantage of it. If they build such a dominating product that people won't/can't switch (ala Microsoft Office or Google search) I for one welcome the new Android overlords. The current marketplace stinks, and an improvement will be welcome.
And, IMO, the current Android marketplace is such a steaming pile of shit that I'm actually quite excited that Amazon is getting into the game. Maybe now I can actually find products that I want to use. If the current marketplace was functioning well, I'd think Amazon wouldn't bother, but it seems like they are saying that they think they can do a much better job than the incumbent. I'd tend to agree with that. Time will tell..
I went over to look and WP had already fixed this. Kind speaks to what's good about WP as well as what's bad - as having that language up is clearly not in the public's interest (though a less offensive phrasing seems appropriate and backed up with evidence).
Software patents offer much broader business protection than copyright on software. Someone can re-implement the same idea, using the same methods, but new code, and not violate your software copyrights. But that activity would in many cases violate your software patent.
I'm not saying that's a good thing, but just trying to answer you question.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been ready to jump ship for awhile, but where's the competition? Cuil? DOA.. Bing? As an earlier poster mentioned, it's pretty hollow. Any other suggestions that can actually compete with Google's search quality (which granted has been diminishing which is why I'm ready to switch)?
Rent, utilities, taxes and other intangibles play into it too. But labor isn't cheap in the US compared to China. Compared to Japan, it's not so bad, which partly explains why Japanese auto makers have put so many factories in the US.
That works well until the day it doesn't.
Here's an honest question: Why? What's wrong with the Oracle version of OO right now? Or is this a preemptive move in anticipation of silly licensing nonsense from Oracle in the future? Like I said this is an honest question. Thanks.
Wait - isn't the question "how to make a cool nuclear reaction that is net energy positive?"
That seems like new physics to me.. Maybe you'd call it new engineering, but since no one thinks this is possible within the current physics framework, I think it would involve new fundamentals, at least on par with high-temp superconduction.
Not that much different from sending along a do-not-track http header with your IP, is it?
I was also under the impression that you could register at FTC ,if this was implemented, and advertisers would have to "wash" their tracking databases of any users listed there (users defined how, I don't know, maybe email). It doesn't stop the bottom feeders who won't pay attention to this database. At least in the telco space, the do not call registry has made a significant impact on telemarketing calls for folks who bother to register. Some fly-by-night telemarketers ignore it, but most legit ones actually play by the rules. I expect the same here -- legit big companies will wash their databases and remove your info.
Tracking data is often saved passively (by layers deeper in the stack - SQL, web server, etc) not actively - so it's not in the business layer near the HTTP headers, where you can put in an "IF" statement, at least in my experience. A lot of it is dumped in various logs that you can't always get a hold of easily while you have the HTTP context available, to prevent them being written. And you could push the HTTP headers or at least that one deeper into the stack for logging too, but that could involve some substantial engineering for some websites.
But I get your point that for stuff that is specifically marketing driven (like write an email to a database) if you see the DO_NOT_TRACK headers in the HTTP, then you just don't write the entry - pretty simple.
First off: this is 99.999% likely to be BS.
But if it isn't BS, there's new physics here, so consuming metals for energy is most definitely worth it.
Three cheers for your correct usage of you're and your. A possible first on slashdot.
Plus an alternative is already being proposed for a federal rule or regulation: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/12/dnttestimony.shtm
I like their way better which would work along the lines of a the central "do not call" registry. I register in one place and advertisers must wash their lists against these users. With an http header, I think the burden is higher to implement b/c you have to integrate it into your webstack. With a registry, you can keep all the data, but must wash it before you use it give it to the marketing dept for analysis. Seems easier to me anyway.
I think you think that I replied to Zerth - possibly /. was hiding the comment from Scrameustache which was who I was responding to. His comment was pretty funny..
Thanks - at first it seemed crazy to me that google doesn't do this already for us, but then their definition of spam and ours seems pretty different (overlaps on the obvious ones). Experts-exchange to me is the best example of this -- to me it's useless. I'm not paying for advice, so why show that one to me ever? We need SearchBlock (tm). Maybe I'll toy around this weekend..
You've got me thinking of what an "adblock" for google searches would look like. Hmm. If every google search POST is intercepted in the browser by this adblock tool and then stuffs a bunch of additional commands onto it:
So the search "maytag washing machine broken" would get turned into:
"maytag washing machine broken -site:junkadvice.com -site:bottomfeeder.com -site:priceaggregator.com"
I wonder how many of those you can ship to google and still have it pay attention to them?
I guess alternatively you could suppress those results via CSS/Javascript when they are displayed, so you don't always see 10 results per page but sometimes only 5 or 6, b/c the others are bullshit sites..
Good idea? Already exists?
Yeah really - and next some paranoid crackpot will be saying that Google is *scanning the air* recording electromagnetic signals from inside of people's houses. We need to get this population on better meds.
I don't have a reference to who said this, but there's an aphorism to describe what you're saying:
"Nothing is illegal if 20 businessmen decide do it."
Casinos are a perfect example of this fact.
I'll just say that you'll *definitely* lose money on Kiva. It's a donation system that has some payback potential. My lossage over about 5 years of donating on the site is about 30%. It doesn't bother me as I'm able to help some folks and many do pay the loans off-- it beats the heck out of the ridiculous overhead that most big non-profits charge..
Thank you. I wasn't familiar with that term but the article you provided helps clear up what the hay this is all about..
Agreed but that doesn't mean FB is going to be come the cash-printing monster that Google is. Wide spread adoption != massive profits, though it certainly helps. I can't see FB running out of cash to keep the servers running, but I have yet to see a hint of their Big Idea for a cash-printing model.
That said, I felt the same way about Google in the mid-90's before it became clear that an advertising marketplace and delivery system for them was the Big Idea (and it worked incredibly well).
Totally agree - how is FB going to make big $$? Google is an advertising monster. Does FB have a superior model to deliver ads to their customers? Right now their targeted ad delivery is a joke. Or maybe they have another big idea for revenue waiting in the wings. They might just end up being a basic info service, which could turn out to be not all that profitable.
I still can't figure out how they are going money. Granted I felt like this about Google in the late 90's until they demonstrated the stunning success of being an advertising broker and delivery engine. That was a very, very good idea.
What is Facebook's very very good idea for revenue? I haven't heard of it yet and revenue just disclosed suggests that they don't have it (yet). That makes me skeptical of their long term ability to become another google in terms of staggering profit lines. They've got everything they need except that very very good idea..
They could be just another Craigslist -- modest profits supporting a modest business, ad inifinitum. Lots of people will keep using them, but maybe they may never crack the major profit nut. Granted CL specifically doesn't try to make much money whereas FB wants to as bad as any of its competitors..
In my opinion (and WP's policy opinion as well) having inflammatory and slanted language in a supposedly neutral information repository is not in the public's interest.
I can't speak for WP, but I think this kind of language should be avoided in WP is the same reason I think troll comments should be ignored or modded out, on /.
They distract from the real issue which are the facts underlying the statement. A neutral, cited statement with the same assertions made by the above referenced inflammatory assertion would be great. Is this woman in fact responsible for hundreds or thousands of needless deaths? What authority has asserted that? Hopefully that authority will provide evidence, or at least back up the claim.
Calling someone a murderer who has in fact not been convicted of murder is also slanderous but that's maybe a whole other topic.
Does this help explain this side of the position? There are surely some legitimate reasons to permit this type of thing into a public encyclopedia (free, open, unfettered, etc) but the downsides far outweigh the benefits in my opinion (and apparently WP's).
The point is that the *can* do this. They're not opening up an iphone store. Android permits competition and Amazon is taking advantage of it. If they build such a dominating product that people won't/can't switch (ala Microsoft Office or Google search) I for one welcome the new Android overlords. The current marketplace stinks, and an improvement will be welcome.
And, IMO, the current Android marketplace is such a steaming pile of shit that I'm actually quite excited that Amazon is getting into the game. Maybe now I can actually find products that I want to use. If the current marketplace was functioning well, I'd think Amazon wouldn't bother, but it seems like they are saying that they think they can do a much better job than the incumbent. I'd tend to agree with that. Time will tell..
I went over to look and WP had already fixed this. Kind speaks to what's good about WP as well as what's bad - as having that language up is clearly not in the public's interest (though a less offensive phrasing seems appropriate and backed up with evidence).
Software patents offer much broader business protection than copyright on software. Someone can re-implement the same idea, using the same methods, but new code, and not violate your software copyrights. But that activity would in many cases violate your software patent.
I'm not saying that's a good thing, but just trying to answer you question.