Re:Ok, M$ is bad, but Google is heading the same w
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 1
"If you're interested, there's a website called google-watch-watch which tracks this google-watch guy."
Isn't this Internet thing Wonderful?
Anyone can refute anyone else's views, and the reader can make up his mind (if he has one).
"I could give you a link, but I'd rather not pass this chance at a feeble meta-joke, and must, therefore, humbly implore you to google the site up.:-)"
No way. I looked for it on Altavista;-)
Re:Ok, M$ is bad, but Google is heading the same w
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 1
I don't think it's important why he set up the site; what matters to me is that he did so, and he exposes views I can check with other sources.
He could have done like everyone else who wants a better pagerank, creating tons of bogus sites pointing to his main site.
Instead, he collected a lot of interesting information on the pagerank algorithm, and then on other Google issues.
To me, this is positive. Just remember to read everything with a grain of salt, as I already wrote.
[by the way, he doesn't have a "celebrity" site, but a conspiracy site called www.namebase.org, which indeed lists more than one hundred thousand powerful people - anyway, another good reason to read everything with a grain of salt]
Ok, M$ is bad, but Google is heading the same way
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
We all have some reason to despise Microsoft, so I won't repeat all of them. Thats' why many people are ready to follow anyone who tries to put up some competition to them.
In some cases, the competition has a much better product (go, Firefox!) In some others, the competition might even be worse... or at least trying to use the same heavy handed tactics M$ has used for decades.
I'm afraid Google might fall into this second class. They have lots of very sensitive data on us: our searches, our emails, maybe we are even handling them the documents on our desktop.
All this data can be easily correlated through an immortal cookie (with an expiration date in 2038, it will definitely outlast my PC).
While I would take anything in this site with a grain of salt, it still paints a very disturbing of Google; anyone can verify their claims, afterwards... but first of all read it!
I have many issues with what OSC wrote. Most of them are subjective (for example, my experience is that Star Trek fans read more books than the average person, and read more SF books than the average TV SF spectator), but at least one point is very clear.
OSC says that "science fiction writing was incredibly fertile at the time, with writers like Harlan Ellison and Ursula LeGuin, Robert Silverberg and Larry Niven, Brian W. Aldiss and Michael Moorcock, Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov, and Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke creating so many different kinds of excellent science fiction that no one reader could keep track of it all." (this is the time of the early series, obviously)
Good point.
This was so fertile a period, that at least two of these authors (Harlan Ellison and Larry Niven) were involved in Star Trek!
This was so fertile a period, that the same jury who awarded those authors lots of Hugo Awards felt compelled to give one to Star Trek, too...
So, I'd say that the original Star Trek was much more in sync with good written Science Fiction than OSC gives it credift for.
It can be argued that the ideals of scouting are much more related to the free software / opensource movement than to the current abuses of intellectual property (which isn't bad in itself).
This is the point raised by Marco Fioretti in his two articles on LinuxJournal:
"(this was a core element in italic/german fascism for the knowledge-impaired)"
A small footnote for the history-impaired.
The italian and german regimes were very quick to disband scouting.
Why?
Because, obviously, they couldn't tolerate an organization proposing a world brotherhood instead of their nationalism.
Because, obviously, they couldn't tolerate an organization teaching boys to be good citizens, instead of being yes-men who bent to the regime.
Later on, communist countries did the same; only in the 90s scouting was able to spring to life again in countries beyond the iron curtain.
Even today, in the People's Republic of China, scouting is banned (even though they allowed the Hong Kong scout organization to continue operating).
So, if you are scared by Scouts, maybe you have a good reason. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Mao Zedong were scared of Scouts, too:-)
Slashdot Mirror
"If you're interested, there's a website called google-watch-watch which tracks this google-watch guy."
:-)"
;-)
Isn't this Internet thing Wonderful? Anyone can refute anyone else's views, and the reader can make up his mind (if he has one).
"I could give you a link, but I'd rather not pass this chance at a feeble meta-joke, and must, therefore, humbly implore you to google the site up.
No way. I looked for it on Altavista
I don't think it's important why he set up the site; what matters to me is that he did so, and he exposes views I can check with other sources.
He could have done like everyone else who wants a better pagerank, creating tons of bogus sites pointing to his main site.
Instead, he collected a lot of interesting information on the pagerank algorithm, and then on other Google issues.
To me, this is positive. Just remember to read everything with a grain of salt, as I already wrote.
[by the way, he doesn't have a "celebrity" site, but a conspiracy site called www.namebase.org, which indeed lists more than one hundred thousand powerful people - anyway, another good reason to read everything with a grain of salt]
We all have some reason to despise Microsoft, so I won't repeat all of them.
Thats' why many people are ready to follow anyone who tries to put up some competition to them.
In some cases, the competition has a much better product (go, Firefox!)
In some others, the competition might even be worse... or at least trying to use the same heavy handed tactics M$ has used for decades.
I'm afraid Google might fall into this second class. They have lots of very sensitive data on us: our searches, our emails, maybe we are even handling them the documents on our desktop.
All this data can be easily correlated through an immortal cookie (with an expiration date in 2038, it will definitely outlast my PC).
There is a web site keeping an eye on Google:
http://www.google-watch.org/
While I would take anything in this site with a grain of salt, it still paints a very disturbing of Google; anyone can verify their claims, afterwards... but first of all read it!
"Next, they'll come out with a GBrowser [...]"
;-)
Just have a look at who registered the gbrowser.com domain
I have many issues with what OSC wrote. Most of them are subjective (for example, my experience is that Star Trek fans read more books than the average person, and read more SF books than the average TV SF spectator), but at least one point is very clear.
OSC says that "science fiction writing was incredibly fertile at the time, with writers like Harlan Ellison and Ursula LeGuin, Robert Silverberg and Larry Niven, Brian W. Aldiss and Michael Moorcock, Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov, and Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke creating so many different kinds of excellent science fiction that no one reader could keep track of it all." (this is the time of the early series, obviously)
Good point.
This was so fertile a period, that at least two of these authors (Harlan Ellison and Larry Niven) were involved in Star Trek!
This was so fertile a period, that the same jury who awarded those authors lots of Hugo Awards felt compelled to give one to Star Trek, too...
So, I'd say that the original Star Trek was much more in sync with good written Science Fiction than OSC gives it credift for.
It can be argued that the ideals of scouting are much more related to the free software / opensource movement than to the current abuses of intellectual property (which isn't bad in itself).
This is the point raised by Marco Fioretti in his two articles on LinuxJournal:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7533
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7813
Maybe these articles would make a good Slashdot story!
"(this was a core element in italic/german fascism for the knowledge-impaired)"
:-)
A small footnote for the history-impaired.
The italian and german regimes were very quick to disband scouting.
Why?
Because, obviously, they couldn't tolerate an organization proposing a world brotherhood instead of their nationalism.
Because, obviously, they couldn't tolerate an organization teaching boys to be good citizens, instead of being yes-men who bent to the regime.
Later on, communist countries did the same; only in the 90s scouting was able to spring to life again in countries beyond the iron curtain.
Even today, in the People's Republic of China, scouting is banned (even though they allowed the Hong Kong scout organization to continue operating).
So, if you are scared by Scouts, maybe you have a good reason.
Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Mao Zedong were scared of Scouts, too