Re:Although this seems "reasonable" in light of th
on
Google Delists BMW-Germany
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
>Google is now dictating the way we must design our sites if we want to even hope to get a decent google rank.
You know its "Google rank" as in Google determines the ranking of the page.
>In effect, google is dictating the terms upon which the entire web must operate
Its the users who still determine how the web operates. "We" determined Google is a good search engine and use it. Its quite easy to stop using Google if it starts giving bad information. "I'm looking for BMW in Germany, but Google sucks for that, I'm moving on to another search engine." Before Google there was another most popular search engine (Yahoo? Alta Vista? some Inktomi based site?) and it could easily change again.
I'm all for bashing Google, but its Google's ranking, its their choice.
How can you control DNA? Say that you learn how to make 1,000,000 by figuring out how to make gold out of lead, how does this get embedded into DNA and on to the next generation? I think its a similar thing when you get parasites performing a specific set of tasks and attacking only a specific part of the brain of the target to get the target to do something.
I would mod him offtopic just because I'm just sick and tired of people, both sides, screaming and yelling about ID everytime there is a story about nature on slashdot.
From the last page of the article (which I find the most useful part of the whole article):
How long do companies keep records of my search terms? Microsoft, Google and Yahoo all said they keep data as long as it's necessary, which could mean forever. Microsoft did add that the company is "looking at ways" to provide users with the option to delete their search histories, and Yahoo made a similar statement.
AOL, on the other hand, says it deletes personally identifiable data after 30 days.
And they identify each unique user by the IP Address (with date/time) and/or a ID cookie.
>Once you understand real programming, learning how to work around the bugs in the.NET development tools, how to get Source Safe to do what you want, etc. -- seems like a waste of a life.
I did misunderstand you but I don't see those things as a waste of life. Those things that you mentioned are pretty minor but one of the things you have to suffer, just like filling up the gas tank of your car is not "real driving".
>if you develop your mind, you likely won't want to work on the pedestrian stuff,... >So you'd better figure out how to make money doing some real programming.
I'm not sure how learning the academic/theoritical basics prevents you from learning "real programming".
I believe one way of looking at what the original poster is talking about is building a pyramid. Build a solid base of basic computer science knowledge and at the top you can put the "real programming". If technologies change, just change/build on the very top of the tall pyramid.
In the long run, it makes you a better programmer/analyst/Jedi than just having the very shallow "real programming" knowledge.
1. Part of taking a stand is that you will sacrifice something. If you believe in something, then stand up. "I hate doing this but I'm too lazy to find a job because, you know, job-hunting is HARD!" No answer on a Internet forum is going to help this person.
2. If this person is in a "wage-slavery" condition, what good is it asking this question? The any answer won't change his condition.
3. "because of the effect the current economy is having on very basic freedoms of conscience."
This has nothing to do with freedom of conscience, he can choose to leave at anytime, he just has to work hard to find a new job or to sacrifice something econmically. Its like saying "I want my freedom to stop watching tv, but there are just too many good tv shows on."
"I've managed to avoid patent work, but that will probably have to change this year."
"I don't look forward to going back on the job market."
"Should I try to obtain Conscientious Objector status?"
Conscientious Objector is for military service. It doesn't sound like it applies. You sound like you think that you can avoid jail time with a small card that says "Get out of jail free" you got from a board game.
And stop being lazy and a coward, either do your job, patents and all, or get out.
>Efficient as the Great Firewall of China is, I can't imagine them catching every last link, so by definition something will get through eventually.
There is nothing "by definition" about this.
I can't believe that people are saying that "eventually something will happen". Eventually everything will turn out all right, in the end, through some magical way, something will happen, one day.
You are betting on a race between people getting something they don't even know exists and a large dedicated government with large resources that is actively preventing this from happening.
>The sum total of available information has increased, particularly through the disclaimer about missing results that was absent from other providers.
Information has not increased because of what Google has done. Google does not provide information, only indexing of information. (In other words, Google doesn't write articles, only provides pointers to them.) (Could we say that the total sum of indexing has increased? No because Google has omitted some pointers, the exact same pointers all the other Chinese search engines omit.)
>it can just lead to a poor result becoming the de facto standard rather than an available compromise that's better for all
The poor result is political censorship, which is even one more step entrenched as the de facto standard in China.
>if you were a CEO or Director who refused for moral reasons to do something that was legal and would benefit your shareholders, that they would have a no-confidence vote and replace you.
I don't think this would happen with Google for a few reasons. (and not including the dual shares struture you pointed out)
1. The way they have the "Do no evil" in their IPO forms. The officers can just claim they are exercising their duties as a socially responsible company. Many companies today are not maximizing their profits exactly because of this.
2. They already own half of the biggest search engine in China already. Putting their big brand-name in does not maximize their profit, it risks weakening their existing brand.
3. They now risk a boycott of their service as a protest against companies that cooperate with China.
The worst case is that Google legitimizing political censorship and people using it are not even aware of what is being censored, if they realized they it is being censored at all.
And I've given examples of how now the Chinese government now is using Google and its brand-name to say "See even big free western companies like Google, which does no evil and all western people rely on it, says that there is nothing special about Tiananmen Square or Tibet."
>I think Google's search capabilities will outstrip the Chinese government's censorship capabilities.
I think that you need to look up the history of totalitarian governments.
But thats ok because doing something wrong now and the foreseeable future, such as legitimizing censorship, is ok, because... you know... some how, some way, someone else will make things better. And for their part, I'm sure that Google is thinking good-positive thoughts so that this will magically occur faster.
>However, in order to do business in China, they had to play by Chinese rules. And I happen to think that some access to information is better than none.
Ok, they don't _have_ to do business in China.
But they are, but why? To give the Chinese people a search engine? There are already search engines available to the Chinese. To give the Chinese people better search engine results than the other search engines? I doubt it better since they are being censored.
What they are doing is giving more support to the Chinese government and their point of view. Google is a brand-name. It is a western brand-name. How many times have you heard "Google is your friend" or "Google it"? Now this brand-name could have been a known for an unbiased information source, but now they have bended. They now just a puppet of the government. (And they did have the alternative of not doing business in China at all.)
Suppose your country forced Google/Yahoo/Wikipedia/your local ISP to censor what you see. Would you shrug and say "oh, at least we are getting some information" and then let things be?
Same thing with Microsoft and Bill Gates (They are a monopoly! They make too much money! They unfairly crush their competition! He is only trying to make amends using our own money!)
Why don't you speak out about all the Microsoft/Bill Gates bashing that goes around here?
"Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, "... "We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."
I'm not sure how, acting as professional businessmen, they are living up to these statements by censoring their results.
> a goverment was asking (demanding) that Google hand over search logs which would seriously comprimise the privacy, and perhaps the security, of a large number of citizens.
Um, no. They were not asking for anything identifying where the search came from. And Google did it for "trade secret" reasons, not because it was a moral decision. (Unless you see the moral decision protecting their technology secrets and therefore protecting the company.)
>I think it's a shame but I can understand Google following national laws - especially when it has no privacy or survaliance result.
Yet government-censorship is ok? How is allowing the government to say "I know what you are reading" better or worse than "I am controlling what you are reading"?
Slashdot Mirror
>Google is now dictating the way we must design our sites if we want to even hope to get a decent google rank.
You know its "Google rank" as in Google determines the ranking of the page.
>In effect, google is dictating the terms upon which the entire web must operate
Its the users who still determine how the web operates. "We" determined Google is a good search engine and use it. Its quite easy to stop using Google if it starts giving bad information. "I'm looking for BMW in Germany, but Google sucks for that, I'm moving on to another search engine." Before Google there was another most popular search engine (Yahoo? Alta Vista? some Inktomi based site?) and it could easily change again.
I'm all for bashing Google, but its Google's ranking, its their choice.
How can you control DNA? Say that you learn how to make 1,000,000 by figuring out how to make gold out of lead, how does this get embedded into DNA and on to the next generation? I think its a similar thing when you get parasites performing a specific set of tasks and attacking only a specific part of the brain of the target to get the target to do something.
>Randomly. That's kinda the idea behind evolution.
Even if a thousand parasites find out about this independently, how does this knowedge/behaviour gets taught/passed down through the generations?
I would mod him offtopic just because I'm just sick and tired of people, both sides, screaming and yelling about ID everytime there is a story about nature on slashdot.
A tech nerd AND a bug nerd?
Do you realize how far in the back of the line for sex you are?!?
(I kid! Seriously, bugs freak me out.)
From the last page of the article (which I find the most useful part of the whole article):
How long do companies keep records of my search terms?
Microsoft, Google and Yahoo all said they keep data as long as it's necessary, which could mean forever. Microsoft did add that the company is "looking at ways" to provide users with the option to delete their search histories, and Yahoo made a similar statement.
AOL, on the other hand, says it deletes personally identifiable data after 30 days.
And they identify each unique user by the IP Address (with date/time) and/or a ID cookie.
Be forewarded.
>Once you understand real programming, learning how to work around the bugs in the .NET development tools, how to get Source Safe to do what you want, etc. -- seems like a waste of a life.
I did misunderstand you but I don't see those things as a waste of life. Those things that you mentioned are pretty minor but one of the things you have to suffer, just like filling up the gas tank of your car is not "real driving".
>if you develop your mind, you likely won't want to work on the pedestrian stuff, ...
>So you'd better figure out how to make money doing some real programming.
I'm not sure how learning the academic/theoritical basics prevents you from learning "real programming".
I believe one way of looking at what the original poster is talking about is building a pyramid. Build a solid base of basic computer science knowledge and at the top you can put the "real programming". If technologies change, just change/build on the very top of the tall pyramid.
In the long run, it makes you a better programmer/analyst/Jedi than just having the very shallow "real programming" knowledge.
1. Part of taking a stand is that you will sacrifice something. If you believe in something, then stand up. "I hate doing this but I'm too lazy to find a job because, you know, job-hunting is HARD!" No answer on a Internet forum is going to help this person.
2. If this person is in a "wage-slavery" condition, what good is it asking this question? The any answer won't change his condition.
3. "because of the effect the current economy is having on very basic freedoms of conscience."
This has nothing to do with freedom of conscience, he can choose to leave at anytime, he just has to work hard to find a new job or to sacrifice something econmically. Its like saying "I want my freedom to stop watching tv, but there are just too many good tv shows on."
"I've managed to avoid patent work, but that will probably have to change this year."
"I don't look forward to going back on the job market."
"Should I try to obtain Conscientious Objector status?"
Conscientious Objector is for military service. It doesn't sound like it applies. You sound like you think that you can avoid jail time with a small card that says "Get out of jail free" you got from a board game.
And stop being lazy and a coward, either do your job, patents and all, or get out.
>In an odd twist of events, it looks like he's friended me. *shrug* :-)
Maybe this is the slashdot version of "makeup sex".
>Efficient as the Great Firewall of China is, I can't imagine them catching every last link, so by definition something will get through eventually.
There is nothing "by definition" about this.
I can't believe that people are saying that "eventually something will happen". Eventually everything will turn out all right, in the end, through some magical way, something will happen, one day.
You are betting on a race between people getting something they don't even know exists and a large dedicated government with large resources that is actively preventing this from happening.
>The sum total of available information has increased, particularly through the disclaimer about missing results that was absent from other providers.
Information has not increased because of what Google has done. Google does not provide information, only indexing of information. (In other words, Google doesn't write articles, only provides pointers to them.)
(Could we say that the total sum of indexing has increased? No because Google has omitted some pointers, the exact same pointers all the other Chinese search engines omit.)
>it can just lead to a poor result becoming the de facto standard rather than an available compromise that's better for all
The poor result is political censorship, which is even one more step entrenched as the de facto standard in China.
>Google says they're going to label redacted data as such.
e n%20square
r e
(Note: I stole the following example)
Look at this;
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&q=tiananm
now look at this;
http://images.google.ca/images?q=tiananmen%20squa
Now would you know that "due to local laws some search results were excluded" that this was the difference?
>I simply can't fathom why you'd think the Chinese people are so gullible.
They are not stupid; the people are not getting the information they need. You can't ask for something you don't know exists.
For an example;
http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1722.html
>if you were a CEO or Director who refused for moral reasons to do something that was legal and would benefit your shareholders, that they would have a no-confidence vote and replace you.
I don't think this would happen with Google for a few reasons. (and not including the dual shares struture you pointed out)
1. The way they have the "Do no evil" in their IPO forms. The officers can just claim they are exercising their duties as a socially responsible company. Many companies today are not maximizing their profits exactly because of this.
2. They already own half of the biggest search engine in China already. Putting their big brand-name in does not maximize their profit, it risks weakening their existing brand.
3. They now risk a boycott of their service as a protest against companies that cooperate with China.
Apparently the best defense against a giant octopus is to use a large aerosol can of pixilation.
>Worst case scenario: Google.ca is useless
The worst case is that Google legitimizing political censorship and people using it are not even aware of what is being censored, if they realized they it is being censored at all.
And I've given examples of how now the Chinese government now is using Google and its brand-name to say "See even big free western companies like Google, which does no evil and all western people rely on it, says that there is nothing special about Tiananmen Square or Tibet."
>I think Google's search capabilities will outstrip the Chinese government's censorship capabilities.
... you know ... some how, some way, someone else will make things better. And for their part, I'm sure that Google is thinking good-positive thoughts so that this will magically occur faster.
I think that you need to look up the history of totalitarian governments.
But thats ok because doing something wrong now and the foreseeable future, such as legitimizing censorship, is ok, because
>However, in order to do business in China, they had to play by Chinese rules. And I happen to think that some access to information is better than none.
Ok, they don't _have_ to do business in China.
But they are, but why?
To give the Chinese people a search engine? There are already search engines available to the Chinese.
To give the Chinese people better search engine results than the other search engines? I doubt it better since they are being censored.
What they are doing is giving more support to the Chinese government and their point of view. Google is a brand-name. It is a western brand-name. How many times have you heard "Google is your friend" or "Google it"? Now this brand-name could have been a known for an unbiased information source, but now they have bended. They now just a puppet of the government. (And they did have the alternative of not doing business in China at all.)
Suppose your country forced Google/Yahoo/Wikipedia/your local ISP to censor what you see. Would you shrug and say "oh, at least we are getting some information" and then let things be?
Same thing with Microsoft and Bill Gates (They are a monopoly! They make too much money! They unfairly crush their competition! He is only trying to make amends using our own money!)
Why don't you speak out about all the Microsoft/Bill Gates bashing that goes around here?
From a purely business point of view, what Google is doing is not right.
0 119312504073639/ds1.htm )
...
They are censoring their results so that they can gain access to a large market, and potentially profit from this.
From Google's SEC Form S-1 Registration Form; ( http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/00
"Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, "
"We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."
I'm not sure how, acting as professional businessmen, they are living up to these statements by censoring their results.
And Google is about to make money by helping the government suppress freedom of information/speech/thoughts.
>share price means very little. One stock split and your whole argument is right out the window.
If this sort of thinking doesn't scream of a bubble, I don't know what does.
Thank you for the food-for-thought.
> a goverment was asking (demanding) that Google hand over search logs which would seriously comprimise the privacy, and perhaps the security, of a large number of citizens.
Um, no. They were not asking for anything identifying where the search came from. And Google did it for "trade secret" reasons, not because it was a moral decision. (Unless you see the moral decision protecting their technology secrets and therefore protecting the company.)
>I think it's a shame but I can understand Google following national laws - especially when it has no privacy or survaliance result.
Yet government-censorship is ok?
How is allowing the government to say "I know what you are reading" better or worse than "I am controlling what you are reading"?