I don't think it really has to be Google vs. Teoma, if they provide different services they both can be very successful.
However, perhaps one of the reasons people don't dig that far with search engines is because search engines haven't been useful for that. Sure, sometimes I'm just looking for a page I know but I forgot the URL, but sometimes I use a search engine to learn about a new topic or find some information about something that I'm learning, and having relevant links sounds great.
I suppose that the social networking nature of the information gathered by Teoma could be useful for social engineering as well. With fewer searches you could get a feel for the way people in a particular field/job think about things and how terms link up.
Was it the overt "forcing" of conformity? Was it the bleakness of the characters' outlooks?
It seems from the posts that I see here that as long as we gradually erode our privacy, for convenience of course, we could always opt out by not using credit cards or the internet or... it is just fine with us, because only criminals need to worry about privacy.
So the option is opt out of society or be surveilled? We shouldn't worry or be concerned because there are options, for now?
Maybe we've already had the brainwashing. 1984 isn't so bad after all.
The problem with the analogy is that HTTP is a different medium (so to speak.)
When you (or I or anyone) look at a web page we make a copy of the page that was on the "owners" server and place it on our disk. The whole functionality of HTTP is to make an identical copy of the data that was on the remote web site. When a person buys a book (or borrows it for that matter) they would have to take a second step to photocopy it (or transcribe or whatever) to get another copy of the book. The same with the broadcast, the receiving medium (television for example) does not function by making an exact copy and then showing it. Additional mechanisms can be added to do this (Tivo, VCR, etc.) but the basic "protocol" does not work in this manner.
The truth is is that HTTP was designed for sharing information and exchanging ideas. When you read this message you've just copied it to your disk and effectively archived the page. These are still my words, they could be copyrighted. But by publishing them in on a web page which is served up using HTTP I have implicitly given you (and whoever wants) permission to copy them. You can delete them by clearing your cache, but the copy was already made.
I had been thinking about this for a while. What
would happen if we Slashdotted the retailers?
Would it generate some pressure to stop this
"CD" nonsense. What if we picked an online
retailer, and picked a CD that was known to be
broken in this manner and all bought it, and
returned it en-masse.
Perhaps if the vendors stopped carrying these
special CD's because of the enormous cost to
them (returns cost restocking if nothing else)
it would have an effect.
Slashdot Mirror
The zire is just like the 1st generation Palm with a rechargable battery and a slightly different form factor.
I'd think buying a used palm 1 would get you the same thing...
-Rachel
I don't think it really has to be Google vs. Teoma, if they provide different services they both can be very successful.
However, perhaps one of the reasons people don't dig that far with search engines is because search engines haven't been useful for that. Sure, sometimes I'm just looking for a page I know but I forgot the URL, but sometimes I use a search engine to learn about a new topic or find some information about something that I'm learning, and having relevant links sounds great.
I suppose that the social networking nature of the information gathered by Teoma could be useful for social engineering as well. With fewer searches you could get a feel for the way people in a particular field/job think about things and how terms link up.
-Rose
Was it the overt "forcing" of conformity? Was it the bleakness of the characters' outlooks?
It seems from the posts that I see here that as long as we gradually erode our privacy, for convenience of course, we could always opt out by not using credit cards or the internet or... it is just fine with us, because only criminals need to worry about privacy.
So the option is opt out of society or be surveilled? We shouldn't worry or be concerned because there are options, for now?
Maybe we've already had the brainwashing. 1984 isn't so bad after all.
-Rose
When you (or I or anyone) look at a web page we make a copy of the page that was on the "owners" server and place it on our disk. The whole functionality of HTTP is to make an identical copy of the data that was on the remote web site. When a person buys a book (or borrows it for that matter) they would have to take a second step to photocopy it (or transcribe or whatever) to get another copy of the book. The same with the broadcast, the receiving medium (television for example) does not function by making an exact copy and then showing it. Additional mechanisms can be added to do this (Tivo, VCR, etc.) but the basic "protocol" does not work in this manner.
The truth is is that HTTP was designed for sharing information and exchanging ideas. When you read this message you've just copied it to your disk and effectively archived the page. These are still my words, they could be copyrighted. But by publishing them in on a web page which is served up using HTTP I have implicitly given you (and whoever wants) permission to copy them. You can delete them by clearing your cache, but the copy was already made.
-Rose
I had been thinking about this for a while. What
would happen if we Slashdotted the retailers?
Would it generate some pressure to stop this
"CD" nonsense. What if we picked an online
retailer, and picked a CD that was known to be
broken in this manner and all bought it, and
returned it en-masse.
Perhaps if the vendors stopped carrying these
special CD's because of the enormous cost to
them (returns cost restocking if nothing else)
it would have an effect.
-Rose