Google didn't make a mistake buying skype, it made a mistake in not using it. Google wields amazing power, and, properly leveraged, could create a huge and dominant market force.
So far, Google has:
Dark Fiber G-pay G-mail G-talk Skype Google Blogger YouTube Metric assloads of cash
What Google needs A TLD. Wireless everywhere.
Here comes the evil...
Google champions the.web TLD. Everyone who signs up gets their own gmail account, blog, skype account, gpay account, etc. all tied to their accountname.tld. Blogger becomes the hub for your digital presence, holding your contacts, meetings, calendar, digital storage, and well, everything else. Anywhere you go in the world, your new google-pda, which is an iPhone on crack, synchronizes your life. Need to make a phone call? Skype handles it. Even mobile to mobile, free, over the wifi infrastructure. Need to access spreadsheets, documents, important business functions? Google has you covered. Need to make a skypeout phone call? It comes straight from your gpay account. Need to buy something at the local store? You can g-pay right there, using your phone.
Google licenses the skype protocol to Cisco, etc, so that businesses can buy a Skype PBX. Google markets their 'Google Business Application Server', which will synchronize spreadsheets, documents, mail, and pretty much everything else, including your digital life. Number portability is built right in. Authentication is built in. Using the google phone, you can even pop up the user on google maps, send directions, etc. Promotional videos, training videos, whatever, are all served up on YouTube, with the rights management tied into the 'Google Business Application Server'. Salespeople will love it, management will love it, and most of all investors will love it. The only ones who won't love it, are the telcos, and the companies that serve up office software and e-mail servers.
Those companies start bitching about Google becoming the next Microsoft. The big Telcos fight back, and start their tiered internet, limiting bandwidth to Google. Google lights up their own fiber like the fourth of July, and cuts the big Telcos out. They had their chance to play nice, and they didn't. Now it's hardball time. Google, in trying to provide everything to everyone at as small of a cost as possible, essentially usurped Microsoft, penis-whacked AT&T, and pwn3d the entire Internet, all in one brilliant strategy. With everyone having a G-pay account now, the banks either bend to Google's will, or get cut out like the telcos.
At least, that's what I'd do, and that's probably why they were so interested in the 700mHz spectrum.
(Sorry about the incoherent rambling, I'll take my pills now)
The interesting thing about the advertising gig is that you're not the consumer, you're not producer, you're the product. Advertisers are selling your attention to companies. You are more correct than you realize about advertisers stealing from you. They are selling you to companies. They have no contract with you, yet they are trying to legally make a binding, non-opt-out contract where you are essentially rented out to the highest bidder.
Unfortunately, the sense of entitlement is on both sides. I will block ads. If they block me, I don't piss and moan, I either don't visit, or I disable the ad blocker for their site. They don't call me a thief, I don't call them a bastard. It seems to be a quasi-rational relationship.
Oh fuck off with that. Take your capitalistic, and simplistic view of the world as seen through your ass, and jam it right beside your head. Not once have I ever been asked before going to a website if I was okay with a shitload of ads strewn about a website, let alone prompted that they would appear. Advertisers are small petulant children; they yell and scream, and when that ceases to work, they scream louder, or steal your car. They do whatever they can to get attention, and when they get it, they want more.
Should the few be punished for the sins of the many? If I were in charge, yes.
At the risk of going off-topic, you are incorrect with that statement. Everyone does things that go against their own set of morals. The proof is the feeling of guilt. If people were unable to act immorally, then there would be no sense of guilt.
Although, what you are most likely leaning towards is the difference between morals and ethics. Given that ethics are loosely defined as a set of morals shared by a majority of a society, then, I would also care to submit that there are more internet users than online advertisers, and we as internet users do not mind blocking ads on the web, then the advertisers are attempting to hijack and redefine the ethics of an online community. And for that, they should be shot and pissed on, or a similar punishment that most of us would not have a problem with.
If things weren't so horribly intrusive and capable of tracking a user's entire internet experience, for the sole purpose of selling you stuff, people wouldn't bitch.
Unfortunately, it's not the supreme court that remembers about those... quaint old "rights" and "warrants" and "due process". And guess where this ruling is heading...
Atleast with a call center in portland, the deception doesn't start when the rep says "My name is George"
Cheers! I just had a ticket submitted for our telephone system. There has been line noise on our PRI, so a call was made to the service hotline. -------
Called Service. Spoke to a wonderful Indian chap named 'Calvin'. 'Calvin', who probably is a fan of Bill Watterson's work, and chose the name due to the fact that he also had a tiger as a pet, issued Ticket No. xxx, and assured me that a Tech would be in contact with me sometime today.
Incidentally, there was clicking on the line as well, but this time it appeared to be due to 'Calvin''s accent, and not due to the PRI.
I excitedly await a call from a service technician. -------
I see that you got modded as flamebait, but in many aspects, your opinions align with mine. I will go one further, and state that KDE, although making great strides as a corporate user desktop, have to make fundamental changes to become a usable, securable desktop. I can set default e-mail accounts using KDE's config files, but even making those settings immutable, as described by KDE, they are allowed to change. Sure they reset when the app is closed, but, even still, if I don't want changes made, I would set defaults and prevent the users from changing them.
The Kiosk tool is half assed, and things need to be changed before you can secure the desktop completely.
Face it, even if it can't be used in court, it is still a great resource. Being able to physically locate a device, record all the conversations, etc. Plus, you could probably argue that the voice conversation is data, the phone was provided as a business resource, etc. You might get a 'fruit from the poison tree' argument, but even still, a lot of these things wouldn't play out in court.
"Bob, we know that you've been leaking secrets to the competitors. You're fired. And if you go quietly, we won't pursue criminal charges." "Hmmm, I see. I'll clean out my desk."
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why they were so interested in 700mHz access, free public wifi, etc.
Google didn't make a mistake buying skype, it made a mistake in not using it. Google wields amazing power, and, properly leveraged, could create a huge and dominant market force.
.web TLD. Everyone who signs up gets their own gmail account, blog, skype account, gpay account, etc. all tied to their accountname.tld. Blogger becomes the hub for your digital presence, holding your contacts, meetings, calendar, digital storage, and well, everything else. Anywhere you go in the world, your new google-pda, which is an iPhone on crack, synchronizes your life. Need to make a phone call? Skype handles it. Even mobile to mobile, free, over the wifi infrastructure. Need to access spreadsheets, documents, important business functions? Google has you covered. Need to make a skypeout phone call? It comes straight from your gpay account. Need to buy something at the local store? You can g-pay right there, using your phone.
So far, Google has:
Dark Fiber
G-pay
G-mail
G-talk
Skype
Google
Blogger
YouTube
Metric assloads of cash
What Google needs
A TLD.
Wireless everywhere.
Here comes the evil...
Google champions the
Google licenses the skype protocol to Cisco, etc, so that businesses can buy a Skype PBX. Google markets their 'Google Business Application Server', which will synchronize spreadsheets, documents, mail, and pretty much everything else, including your digital life. Number portability is built right in. Authentication is built in. Using the google phone, you can even pop up the user on google maps, send directions, etc. Promotional videos, training videos, whatever, are all served up on YouTube, with the rights management tied into the 'Google Business Application Server'. Salespeople will love it, management will love it, and most of all investors will love it. The only ones who won't love it, are the telcos, and the companies that serve up office software and e-mail servers.
Those companies start bitching about Google becoming the next Microsoft. The big Telcos fight back, and start their tiered internet, limiting bandwidth to Google. Google lights up their own fiber like the fourth of July, and cuts the big Telcos out. They had their chance to play nice, and they didn't. Now it's hardball time. Google, in trying to provide everything to everyone at as small of a cost as possible, essentially usurped Microsoft, penis-whacked AT&T, and pwn3d the entire Internet, all in one brilliant strategy. With everyone having a G-pay account now, the banks either bend to Google's will, or get cut out like the telcos.
At least, that's what I'd do, and that's probably why they were so interested in the 700mHz spectrum.
(Sorry about the incoherent rambling, I'll take my pills now)
I'll take 2 gigs please.
You got beat up a lot, didn't you?
"Hey, the nerd at school gave me a cd I can put in, and it will bypass all software on the computer, and not leave a trace."
But you're likely to get a contact high from RMS.
How will Theo know which RMS to fight?
He must be married.
Pretty soon, you're going to get your comeuppance. You just wait.
And don't forget to throw out your microwave.
The interesting thing about the advertising gig is that you're not the consumer, you're not producer, you're the product. Advertisers are selling your attention to companies. You are more correct than you realize about advertisers stealing from you. They are selling you to companies. They have no contract with you, yet they are trying to legally make a binding, non-opt-out contract where you are essentially rented out to the highest bidder.
Unfortunately, the sense of entitlement is on both sides. I will block ads. If they block me, I don't piss and moan, I either don't visit, or I disable the ad blocker for their site. They don't call me a thief, I don't call them a bastard. It seems to be a quasi-rational relationship.
Wow, a logical and technically sound argument? Holy crap, Slashdot's going to implode.
Oh fuck off with that. Take your capitalistic, and simplistic view of the world as seen through your ass, and jam it right beside your head. Not once have I ever been asked before going to a website if I was okay with a shitload of ads strewn about a website, let alone prompted that they would appear. Advertisers are small petulant children; they yell and scream, and when that ceases to work, they scream louder, or steal your car. They do whatever they can to get attention, and when they get it, they want more.
Should the few be punished for the sins of the many? If I were in charge, yes.
At the risk of going off-topic, you are incorrect with that statement. Everyone does things that go against their own set of morals. The proof is the feeling of guilt. If people were unable to act immorally, then there would be no sense of guilt.
Although, what you are most likely leaning towards is the difference between morals and ethics. Given that ethics are loosely defined as a set of morals shared by a majority of a society, then, I would also care to submit that there are more internet users than online advertisers, and we as internet users do not mind blocking ads on the web, then the advertisers are attempting to hijack and redefine the ethics of an online community. And for that, they should be shot and pissed on, or a similar punishment that most of us would not have a problem with.
Then, should we not send advertisers a bill for computing cycles used to render the ads?
What was IBM's rate for on-demand computing cycles?
If things weren't so horribly intrusive and capable of tracking a user's entire internet experience, for the sole purpose of selling you stuff, people wouldn't bitch.
Is the enemy of my enemy my friend, or is he still an asshole?
Unfortunately, it's not the supreme court that remembers about those ... quaint old "rights" and "warrants" and "due process". And guess where this ruling is heading...
"I'll never view YouTube again"
"Google isn't supposed to be evil!"
"Way to ruin YouTube!"
ad nauseum
Cheers! I just had a ticket submitted for our telephone system. There has been line noise on our PRI, so a call was made to the service hotline.
-------
Called Service. Spoke to a wonderful Indian chap named 'Calvin'. 'Calvin', who probably is a fan of Bill Watterson's work, and chose the name due to the fact that he also had a tiger as a pet, issued Ticket No. xxx, and assured me that a Tech would be in contact with me sometime today.
Incidentally, there was clicking on the line as well, but this time it appeared to be due to 'Calvin''s accent, and not due to the PRI.
I excitedly await a call from a service technician.
-------
Ahh, the Indian call center. Lovely.
New to you, or pre-owned...
or would that be pre-pwn3d?
If they could get away with it, they would make you pay for content you don't even watch, but have the ability to.
Crooks, fighting to uphold a dying business model, and squeeze every penny out of it the entire way.
When you have to clear your code with lawyers. The best part of it is that if it were a closed source blob, this step wouldn't really be necessary.
I see that you got modded as flamebait, but in many aspects, your opinions align with mine. I will go one further, and state that KDE, although making great strides as a corporate user desktop, have to make fundamental changes to become a usable, securable desktop. I can set default e-mail accounts using KDE's config files, but even making those settings immutable, as described by KDE, they are allowed to change. Sure they reset when the app is closed, but, even still, if I don't want changes made, I would set defaults and prevent the users from changing them.
The Kiosk tool is half assed, and things need to be changed before you can secure the desktop completely.
Face it, even if it can't be used in court, it is still a great resource. Being able to physically locate a device, record all the conversations, etc. Plus, you could probably argue that the voice conversation is data, the phone was provided as a business resource, etc. You might get a 'fruit from the poison tree' argument, but even still, a lot of these things wouldn't play out in court.
"Bob, we know that you've been leaking secrets to the competitors. You're fired. And if you go quietly, we won't pursue criminal charges."
"Hmmm, I see. I'll clean out my desk."