Not complaints, actually calling for revision
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 1
Google does have a monopoly on search engines; but, it is also extremely good. Most of the posts posted con-brandt are complaining that he is complaining (based on it doesn't use namebase) but if one spends the time reading his article (www.googlewatch.com), instead of simply bitching based on what was said in the news-breif he basically says that Google should do more research in other areas because it 'could' (he really doesn't provide evidence) be missing out on a lot of a hellfully useful and ideal quality webpages that are usually too small to draw much attention.
Mostly, I think, he is trying to call a revision to Google to develop more 'pagerank' innovations that trace and find the smaller, less popularized but still as valueable (how many good books sit unread in a book store because few know of them while the 'name' brands are always being read?), instead of basing the rank on primarily linktolink votes. Which, I honestly think is one of the smartest ideas that really is necessary to make the web more cohesive and pertitent: it would make the web more 'useful' by defining what is valuable with more percise depth than simply a catalogued popularity index (there are more factors, but that IS how google 'looks' to operate if you use it).
But I can't believe any human being on here who understands computers (even remotly) and understands authority (even 4th party) could stand for the google cookies that last for 50 and 60 more years! What kind of unnecessary bullshit is that!?!
(let me also apologize for the disordely and poor lingustic quality of this post, there are numerous reasons and the day is already too long.)
The people.
Microsoft: A large bulk of MS users are simple minded consumers who cannot match computing use as their minds often run on a linear algorythm. (they can spell though, i can.t)
For the most part, they are rigidly locked into using microsoft.
Most l(unix) users are intellegent, and intellegent enough to easily transfer their operating system to whatever is best for their purposes. Redhat could never do what MS did, simply because of this: we'd all just move! Screw them, what can they do then?
One of the greatest potential threats of the coming future, in terms of economics, is the concept of 'factor price equalization' where every competitor must abide to the lowest price/cost etc. This is bad in many cases, in the cases of cell phones it is good (more and more features for competitiveness, better for us) and, likewise, for linux, REDHAT would be FORCED to be 'good' because, simply, there is enough 'equal' competition and most linux-users are smart enough/capable of switching easily.
im sorry this offtopic but i can't figure out how to msg you.
but, 'fyi' the word MENSA comes from central/southern americas where the poor peasant class children would call eachother mensa to taunt eachother, its equivilent english meaning would be 'idiot' or moron.
But compare the quality of the news reported on the BBC and on almost, really almost any, American-based 'news' firm. What news do you view/use exactly?
The ideal business model would emerge: no television, essentially. Television is primarily entertainment with no intellectual, mental or 'stimulating' / 'productive' substance (there are exceptions: Farscape, Startrek, Buffy, etc...; as well as the public-funded (for the most part) like KCET which airs actually educating stuff and news like the BBC, but these are already commercial free), the rest is a bunch of biased bullshit that, in effect, dumbs most american's down much like a lifetime of welding will dull one's soul and capacity for 'positive' output/response.
Why do they have to air the goddamn things in the middle of shows anyways? it destroys the show, as plots are generally continuous. (and then they further mutilate the shows by forcing producing / writers to desiginate the plot around, and thus for, commercials... disgusting really.)
But, as far as business models go, a publically funded setup would work great. It could show shows like Farscape and whatever else is actually good, and people could donate during fundraisers (it is actually successfully done...). This would also force people out of their homes more often as less people might vegitate for hours on end (or, pro-economy, rentals might maximize).
Not to mention most commercials are obscenely molesting of any human mind, espicially children: sexist often, often terribly circumsizing to the limits of ours minds... What kind of bullshit they must generate in the 'dark' (as in the matter) pathos of our minds!
Slashdot Mirror
Mostly, I think, he is trying to call a revision to Google to develop more 'pagerank' innovations that trace and find the smaller, less popularized but still as valueable (how many good books sit unread in a book store because few know of them while the 'name' brands are always being read?), instead of basing the rank on primarily linktolink votes. Which, I honestly think is one of the smartest ideas that really is necessary to make the web more cohesive and pertitent: it would make the web more 'useful' by defining what is valuable with more percise depth than simply a catalogued popularity index (there are more factors, but that IS how google 'looks' to operate if you use it).
But I can't believe any human being on here who understands computers (even remotly) and understands authority (even 4th party) could stand for the google cookies that last for 50 and 60 more years! What kind of unnecessary bullshit is that!?!
(let me also apologize for the disordely and poor lingustic quality of this post, there are numerous reasons and the day is already too long.)
For the most part, they are rigidly locked into using microsoft.
Most l(unix) users are intellegent, and intellegent enough to easily transfer their operating system to whatever is best for their purposes. Redhat could never do what MS did, simply because of this: we'd all just move! Screw them, what can they do then?
One of the greatest potential threats of the coming future, in terms of economics, is the concept of 'factor price equalization' where every competitor must abide to the lowest price/cost etc. This is bad in many cases, in the cases of cell phones it is good (more and more features for competitiveness, better for us) and, likewise, for linux, REDHAT would be FORCED to be 'good' because, simply, there is enough 'equal' competition and most linux-users are smart enough/capable of switching easily.
im sorry this offtopic but i can't figure out how to msg you. but, 'fyi' the word MENSA comes from central/southern americas where the poor peasant class children would call eachother mensa to taunt eachother, its equivilent english meaning would be 'idiot' or moron.
But compare the quality of the news reported on the BBC and on almost, really almost any, American-based 'news' firm. What news do you view/use exactly?
Why do they have to air the goddamn things in the middle of shows anyways? it destroys the show, as plots are generally continuous. (and then they further mutilate the shows by forcing producing / writers to desiginate the plot around, and thus for, commercials... disgusting really.)
But, as far as business models go, a publically funded setup would work great. It could show shows like Farscape and whatever else is actually good, and people could donate during fundraisers (it is actually successfully done...). This would also force people out of their homes more often as less people might vegitate for hours on end (or, pro-economy, rentals might maximize).
Not to mention most commercials are obscenely molesting of any human mind, espicially children: sexist often, often terribly circumsizing to the limits of ours minds... What kind of bullshit they must generate in the 'dark' (as in the matter) pathos of our minds!