"...From the article, 'Certainly, Jobs accomplished more than probably any other CEO since he returned to Apple in the late 1990s:
So? What did he do in the LAST decade? Shouldn't that be what matters?
... and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music.
Really? I don't have an iPod. More Americans don't than do. What did he do exactly that change the way we listen to music? MP3 players were already coming into prominence. Perhaps he accelerated it, but he didn't change the way we do it.
Oh yea, he created the iTunes. Yup, he did indeed singlehandedly come up with a way to purchase music online, to put DRM into it, and was the first to do so./end sarcasm.
If anything, he did convince many companies to forgo DRM, and for that, I do give him credit for. So in that way, he did change the way we listen to music.
Even more, you should start a website. I have found that children really do want parenting, even if they are not aware. Also, parents want to parent, but they think it is hopeless. Only knowledge and truth will dispel myths. Getting it out there could go a very, very long way. Imagine, if it took off and parents parented, what the fruits would be!
I'm not sure why all the anti-violence posts are modded down, but here's another one.
That is easy, they are wrong and have an agenda. They directly insult those who are wiser.
As someone who has their own child and has been a foster carer for children who are much more challenging than anything most of you could imagine, I can say that I have never hit a child. NEVER. Hitting a child or even shouting at a child is a sign to that child that you have lost control.
In general, I would agree, however one could argue the moment a child does anything outside of instruction you have lost control. In the right circumstances, yelling can be good, albeit rarely. I fell the punishment when applicable should illustrate the consequences, even if not fully realized directly to the child. If a child is yelling for instance, and refuses to stop, yelling at them could convince them why it is not good to yell, depending on why the child was yelling. Lets say it was distracting a family member. Allow them to play the video game. They will be confused sure, but as soon as they get to a place where concentration is needed, let them have it. You have shown them courtesy by allowing them to play when they know they are wrong, and often you may find they will actually ask you to stop. Be creative in parenting, but be careful. Reaching for the belt every-time is disastrous.
There is never a reasonable form of assault.
What if the child is in the middle of hitting someone else and that is the only way? You have big fallacies in your arguments.
You are the coward here. You even go by that name. Inept? Why. because they discipline? You think that because you parents abused you all parents that spank properly do? If this is what you teach your children, then sit you are inept.
There isn't much difference between "spanking" and "slapping." Getting hit in the butt is the same as getting hit on the face, just less effective.....
When your child is physically big enough and mentally mature enough to assert dominance by force, then you need new, non-physical discipline tools. Spanking is only for a certain age range where it's effective and doesn't lead to physical fights (see OP -- they mentioned this quite clearly)
To everyone here, there is a lot of difference, as the (GP) pointed out.. I was 14 when my mom decided to slap me. That is when I knew it was time to leave. I would have respected her decision to spank me, but instead she slapped me. If anyone does not believe that there is a difference, why don't you be brave enough to try a little experiment. Allow someone to pop your bottom. Not so bad, was it? Stung a little. Now allow them to slap you. See? A slap in the face is a slap in the face. Slapping someone when they are mad at you only makes things worse. Properly spanking them can perform the (should be) intended action, of informing the child there will be consequences to actions.
You misinterpreted "instant reaction" to mean the parent instantly reacting to the situation with a slap, rather than the situation being instantly over after 1 slap. In the context of burning your finger versus lighting your arm on fire, burning your finger is over in an instant, and hopefully you've learned your lesson with no further action or harm necessary.
And here we have a Coward again trying to reinterpret what he was being said. without dissecting why he is wrong, have you ever known anyone to slap someone other than instantly? It just sends the wrong message. Spanking however, can send the right one. There are many factors, such as age but I bet you that they guy who got caned (Taiwan?) will no longer be trashing sports cars in a foreign country, or otherwise. Do I think it was overboard, perhaps. But it worked. Slapping him in the face, doubtful.
If we can pony up seven to eight hundred BILLION dollars because the banks got greedy,... Then why can't the Government be the Employer of Last Resort? We've got infrastructure falling around our ears, we've got social problems galore, why not simply take every unemployed person in America and put them to work fixing problems far too long neglected?
And yeah, let's put tax rates back to where they were in 1950 to pay for it, and ask any who complain why they hate America?
15 years of a $100,000 job would really turn things around for this country. It would allow them (including myself) to probably buy that house instead of renting that they have been wanting to. But right now, they are out of work. They could also buy the car that they need. (Even a green efficient one!) We wouldn't need to raise taxes either; anyone who tells you so is either a liar, or under a delusion. Doing the (simple) math just now has told me that Obama, and the whole entire government has sold us out to the bankers and to whoever ultimately controls them.
*1 - Seven hundred billion in bailouts which may be conservative as a Google search of "Total cost of bank bailouts" gives links indicating up to 4 trillion in Jan. and up to 23.7 trillion in July.
*2 - One hundred thousand dollars, which is a comfortable salary anywhere in America, or should be.
*3 - Four hundred and fifty two thousand reported 9 hours ago are unemployed right now according to Google search (news).
*4 - Fifteen years is how long the currently unemployed could be paid one hundred thousand dollars a year.
... everybody else is pretty much closed. So, if I stay with Google, my data is ready to leave, but I can't go anywhere else because it would get closed. I wonder if Google would be still so open with their products if the competition wasn't so dumb enough to screw their customers over and over again.
Fair question. I believe that the blog post answers it and says that yes, this is the best way, the future, and what has happened that has made so much possible already, by being open where it matters. Also, we see companies trying to jump on the bandwagon...
You better be glad I respond well to complements. Having said that, I need another prescription for my glasses! lol. And I am glad you refrained from ad hominem attacks. They are cheap, and not effective against me in my experience.
A vendor should be perfectly warranted in taking the Kernel and application layer, add a few proprietary extensions and a custom IU, and release it as a cohesive product without and obligation to license it to others. Yet this is precisely the behavior the Google wishes to prevent.... Vendors using Android are free under the open license agreement to bundle it with as much closed and proprietary stuff as they want.
Sure, they wish to prevent the downsides. What is wrong with that? They "opened" it and that says something about their intentions as well.
They want to have their cake and eat it too. You can't. Ether you allow the inevitable fracturing and closed source bundling of your product, or you bite the bullet and put up restrictions on licensing that aren't allowed under open use.
Could they do it partly through diplomacy? That has seemed to work so far. To use your IBM example, could they implement a "stated" open standard of some sort, and a critical mass get on board which would effectively lock out smaller companies from hurting everyone else by going their own way? Perhaps I do not understand (or we both) the issue from both sides.
If the internet went all Silverlight in the next few years,
Uh oh...
Google would be dead. So they're committed to an open internet. Witness Chrome, ChromeOS and Android, all of which are made to keep the internet an open platform. Not a Google-controlled locked-down internet, like Microsoft has consistently tried to create (MSN, IE, ActiveX, Silverlight, etc...), but an open platform.
Phew, good thing the good guys can stand up to themselves. Righteousness in action, to the benefit of all!
Corporations are bound by laws that transcend the humans that operate them. Some day, who knows when, push will come to shove and unless Google acts in the interests of its *stockholders* rather than its *users*, they will be liable for being sued by their stock holders or the SEC. It may be a long way off or it may be next year, but they can't escape the fundamental change that becoming a public company has wrought upon them.
Firstly it is a good thing they are required to act in the interest of their shareholders, and why they are where they are now.
A publicly-traded company is required to maximize shareholder value in accordance with its prospectus.
Before a company goes public, it produces a prospectus. The prospectus details the business plan of the company, as well as its philosophy and self-imposed restrictions. It is the responsibility of the investor to read and understand the prospectus before investing. If the prospectus states that the company will place customer loyalty above short-term profit, then any lawsuit based on "the company didn't maximize short-term profit because they weren't pricks to their customers" will fail.
Secondly, here is the cool and amazing part. Brin and Page own 51% of the voting stock, so what they decide is best for the company, goes.
It all comes down to therefore do you trust Brin and Page. If what they have done and are doing now doesn't do it for you, then who do you trust?
Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro
on
Google About Openness
·
· Score: 1
You just confirmed that they want anything that isn't their core business to be open, while they want to keep their own stuff closed. The stuff that matters for their bottom line.
Not really, but so what of it if he was? What does that have to do with an open Internet being promoted and encouraging others to do the same? Aww, forget it.
Wow, you really are an apologist for Google, aren't you? you've been completely suckered in by their propaganda. What is this "standard" you speak of? Talking about themselves in a positive manner, making the company out to be "good guys" while at the same time mining your personal information for the purposes of marketing and advertising? Yeah, they certainly set that standard.
They sure did. There actions have made them out to be quite nice. And? You only prove my point there... thanks.
Why anybody would applaud this is another matter. It's very weird to see people who are fanboys of an advertising company.
When I started using the internet, the idea that it should be used to commercial purposes was anathema. The "standard" was that it was for research and free cultural exchange to benefit society. It's amazing to me that today not only is rampant commercialism on the internet tolerated, it's actively praised, and a company that's business has been pimping out the web for profit is seen as some kind of hero of openness.
Since you have started to use the Internet, times have changed. Marketing is anathema? You realize it is the system of cash flow that we get most of our media from, right? This personal information you speak of is required to market on that level, and return the quality of service on that level. Websites are not free, and unless they sell something they often need some income. I concede that paying for what you use directly may be better in principle, but then that would shutter advertising and the economy. (as it is setup now) Also it would keep information closed to many because they can't afford to pay for it. So yea, it is open.
If you do not want to be pimped, do not sniff the line of coke.
Re:"Openness" defines shift from 20th to 21st cent
on
Google About Openness
·
· Score: 1
The reason that Google is so interesting is that they promote openness to a degree that few other tech companies do because it's in their best interest. If you assume that anyone should put your benefit above theirs, you will be constantly disappointed, but Google has discovered that in many areas peripheral to their core business they can benefit significantly by opening access to everyone and skimming ad revenue off the traffic. Opening source often pulls more people to the core technology, in turn generating ad revenue. It's important to remember that Google can do free thanks to ad revenue.
I believe it is in all business's best interest. Consider what he said about a smaller piece of a much bigger pie. While it make take more spending, Microsoft could have made the world better if they would not have raped everyone. The economy's growth would have more than likely made them even more successful. They are too greedy to see this. It is true we have been disappointed, but now that we have logical men running a big company that is willing to lead by example, perhaps others will wise up. If not, they will get run over. It matters not where or how they do free. Free is better than Microsoft, who is now paying for your searches in Bing, footing the bill for the codecs in Moonlight, etc. Maybe it all comes out in the wash. But as long as they do things legal and not anti-competitive (which they haven't), then I surmise it will.
Microsoft could say Google is right and change their practices. In ways they have by opening up the few things not legally forced (and they claimed was out of the goodness of their heart...) But high ranking staff members pride may keep them from doing so, as is often with poor hiring and business ethics.
In other words, they're being hypocritical. Or the author failed basic high school English composition.
"Open source is high quality code and benefits an open internet, but our lucrative search and ad products are closed, because opening them up would lower its quality." But isn't that the point of "open source" in the first place?
No, that isn't the point in the first place. They are not being hypocritical.
I fail to see why a free software developer wouldn't be insulted by such a condescending position.
I can see why, because they understand open software and search algorithms.
Oh, and Google panders to the Chinese censors too. What was that about an "open internet" again?
Panders is just FUD. It was break the link but give the URL (close enough!), or be censored entirely since Yahoo who was already there didn't take the stand and did in fact pander. That was a small win for an open internet.
Actually this was the part I thought was most disingenuous. Google has 4 times the market share of its nearest competitor! The barrier to entry in starting a new search engine is enormous - nearly impossible. It's not like 1999 when anybody with a server rack could have a good shot at indexing most of the internet. You physically can't do it without a data center so large that even just supplying power to it is a huge problem. To hold it up as an example where competition is easy and working is laughable.
To imply that Google is unbeatable due to their size is laughable. They are their size because they are the best. If you offer a superior product and service, people will go. Many people would go because they fear Google. But simply the public feels they are the best. Finally, you mean to tell me that Bing or Yahoo don't have the resources to beat Google? That is laughable, they don't have the smarts. Bing is willing to buy your searches, and they can't do it because it sucks so bad. Look, if you make a better product, you WILL get market share in time. Look what is happening to I.E.
I read it. Obviously they are going to say it would do more harm than good. I'm sure MS would say the same thing about removing DRM support from Windows.
Except we know it is obvious they would be wrong in that case...
We can speculate about the secondary bad effects opening their search algorithm might cause, but we know the primary effect would be more competition in search. That's Google's key reason for keeping it closed.
How do we know that? History has shown us making the source available would jeopardize the rankings, and that would most likely be the primary effect... once it takes hold, there won't be anything else left!.
Key reason... I tell you what, you tell me how to keep a multiperson input/output system from being molested without "any" restrictions **, and I will show you how to convince Google to open their search code.
> since the first page on every search would be nothing but links to viagra and malware
That's just an assertion. It relies on an assumption that Google's algorithms have no real integrity and can be easily fooled.
No, it relies on all of the real world experience with search engines that have been fooled.
If you believe that "open wins", you should believe that we would see rapid improvement as people innovated around those algorithms.
Is it possible that opening the algorithms will simply allow them to be gamed and no one will find a way to make it foolproof? The rapid improvement you will see will be from those gaming the system.
But more to the point, it's not so much that they keep the algorithms closed that is offensive but that the whole post is about how there is some fundamental magical property about 'openness' that makes everything it touches turn to gold. And after paragraph upon paragraph of this he suddenly drops in "oh, except here and here because we say so".
He said where appropriate and gave examples where you can tell the difference. Good guy really.
You can't really have it both ways. Microsoft can just as easily assert that keeping SMB closed or making IE proprietary instead of standards based is "good for the internet" as Google can assert keeping their stuff closed.
Sure you can have it both ways. Open search = bad. Not getting your files does NOT equal good.
The fact is this: open does not always win.There are valid scenarios where it just doesn't work, where it's a losing proposition for everyone.
And here you are saying it is both ways... Do you realize you are agreeing with them?
The whole blog post is just a load of BS designed to smear Apple and Microsoft with a tag of not being Open while somehow keeping a halo on Google's head.
Where did they smear Apple or Microsoft? Where? Nowhere, that is where! If they are feeling condemned, it is by their own volition. If I say I helped a lady across the street, does that mean you are a bad person? Of course not! You may be *better* for not boasting and have already done it yourself. But here, they are saying we need to clarify what open means to us. And we should thank them for it, as Apple or Microsoft has not done this. Even if they were saying they are wearing a halo, good. Then when it falls off people like you will come rushing in to make them stand back up straight.
Anyway, the only thing Google did to gain that revenue was to actually pay site owners what they owed. That's it. It's the "be mediocre, but also don't fuck up" strategy that's worked so well for Microsoft over the years.
Sounds like they gave them exactly what they could ask for. Because messing up and making payouts at the time wasn't actually extraordinary, as you illustrated. Well, I guess they could give them a rubdown and a shiatsu, so that they won't be mediocre.
What does *any* of that have to do with open source? Nothing.
Nothing, except to them it is a valid reason not to open it.
"Gaming" the algorithms has zilch to do with seeing the source. Anyone can "game" Google. "Gaming" only needs the ability to supply an input (put up a web page, submit it for indexing) and view an output (run a search and see the ranking).
You are right in that anyone can try to game Google. But someone who knows the exact inner workings should be able to know how to totally skew it. They seem to be happy with how it works, and 2 billion searches a day say the public is as well. Could they change it? Sure, but then it would not be the same as it is now, delivering search goodness.
It's not like SEOs actually pay Google to see their source or anything. And let's not even mention the Google "webmaster tools". Those should be the first to go if "gaming" was the top priority.
I believe they balance priorities. So, since Counter-Strike can be "gamed" (cheated) Valve should throw out the ability to use my home PC, and my mouse and keyboard since I can "play" online? No, human moderation is the answer.
The reason they want the internet open is because that is where they make their money. No other reason. Nothing noble.
*Can't be anything else?* How do you know this? You don't. You are just spreading FUD. So, if I donate to a charity, is that just to make myself money, or myself look good? Never for a noble reason?
Grants and Investments
Google.org has committed over $100 million in grants and investments. These include: Clean Energy
* Makani Power Inc.: $15 million investment to support R&D on high-altitude wind energy extraction technologies aimed at producing utility-scale power cheaper than coal.
* eSolar Inc. and BrightSource Energy, Inc.: $10 million investments in each to support R&D on solar thermal power to produce utility-scale power cheaper than coal.
* AltaRock Energy, Inc: $6.25 million investment in EGS technologies and project development to support the advancement of enhanced geothermal systems.
* Potter Drilling: $4 million investment in two tranches focused on developing hard rock drilling breakthrough technologies for EGS.
* Southern Methodist University Geothermal Lab: $489,521 grant to improve geothermal resource assessment techniques and update the Geothermal Map of North America.
* U.S. National Academy of Sciences: $250,000 grant for a study that will develop recommendations for U.S.-Chinese cooperation on renewable electricity.
* Stanford University: $135,000 award to increase the power output per advanced geothermal well.
* San Diego State University: $239,504 grant to develop a small particle solar receiver that can absorb concentrated sunlight directly into a gas to operate a Brayton cycle system and generate electricity.
RechargeIT
* Aptera Motors and ActaCell: $2.75 million investment to support the development of technologies that will enable widespread commercialization of plug-in electric vehicles
* Brookings Institution: $200,000 to support a conference in spring 2008 on federal policy to promote plug-in hybrids
* CalCars: $200,000 multi-year grant to the California Cars Initiative to support their work educating the public about plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)
* Electric Power Research Institute: $200,000 to support EPRI's plug-in vehicle research and development program including participating in advanced infrastructure development, vehicle-to-grid technology demonstrations, and studies of the environmental and economic benefits of plug-ins
* Rocky Mountain Institute: $200,000 to partially fund an 'Innovation Workshop' to promote new strategies for greater production and market adoption of plug-in next-generation hybrid vehicles
* Dr. Willett Kempton at University of Delaware: $150,000 for megawatt plug-in to grid research and implementation planning
* Plug-In America: $100,000 to raise public awareness of and to advocate for plug-in transportation options
Global Health
Predict and Prevent
* ICIPE and partners: $5M multi-year grant for discovery and surveillance of insect-carried infectious diseases, such as Rift Valley fever, in Kenya.
* FaceAids: $200K grant to establish a Global Health Fellowships program.
* Southern African Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance (SACIDS) through GHSI: $500K for the establishment of the Southern Africa Center for Infectious Disease Surveillance.
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS): $100K grant as a contribution to the report "The US Commitment to Globa
He may have been wrong for that. I say may as I need more information. Really though, they could have been more tactful than to post his information. I mean you are right, they got it from Google, so it was publicly available. Blacklisting didn't change that, so I think he was sending a clear message, "you overstepped the line" and was a warning to all that just because you disagree you may not want to compile someone's information and post it on the web together. Am I making excuses? Or is it different? I need more info, like I said. But I wouldn't be happy and would not think it was "cool" in the least, even if I knew I was wrong. I may also find it quite unacceptable and feel the need to set an example. There are other ways.
Well, perhaps we shouldn't be making search rankings a "game" in the first place?
He said winning conditions, not a game. But some see everything as a game, i.e. survival of the fittest. That is life.
Systems like this are designed to allow everyone to participate without being able to exercise undue influence.
So, wouldn't opening the algorithms up result in less undue influence? After all, everybody can see how it works, therefore it can be modified to eliminate such influences. As it stands, Google has complete control, and we don't know what influences are being exerted on it.
No, it would result in more. They would know exactly what strings to pull. There will always be strings. They can get lucky and guess, but like cheating anything on a massive scale, human moderation (i.e. even just changing how it works over time) can help negate this. As far as knowing what influences are being exerted on it, all we have to do is search to find out how Page Ranks acts. Then we can see how it influences the query returns...
And thanks ajs, I wish I wold have seen your post before responding to dangitman.
And the friends that I have that are mechanics that are not trying to charge me will tell me to let them see it if need be. But if I tell them it is making a clicking sound when I turn, they may say put it in reverse and if it clicks immediately with the wheel turned, you need to change your CVs. I am not a mechanic, but I have done it and helped others. It can be done as well as diagnosing a computer over the phone, which entirely depends on the aptitude and knowledge on the person on the other end of the line to be successful, almost ever. But some things will be easier obviously "hands on". Still a horrible analogy and I think he should try to come at me with something better.
Slashdot Mirror
"...From the article, 'Certainly, Jobs accomplished more than probably any other CEO since he returned to Apple in the late 1990s:
So? What did he do in the LAST decade? Shouldn't that be what matters?
... and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music.
Really? I don't have an iPod. More Americans don't than do. What did he do exactly that change the way we listen to music? MP3 players were already coming into prominence. Perhaps he accelerated it, but he didn't change the way we do it.
Oh yea, he created the iTunes. Yup, he did indeed singlehandedly come up with a way to purchase music online, to put DRM into it, and was the first to do so. /end sarcasm.
If anything, he did convince many companies to forgo DRM, and for that, I do give him credit for. So in that way, he did change the way we listen to music.
The Christian way is to not spare the rod, and use it heavily and forcefully. Who are you to question Jesus when disciplining kids?
That is the Anonymous Coward way.
Even more, you should start a website. I have found that children really do want parenting, even if they are not aware. Also, parents want to parent, but they think it is hopeless. Only knowledge and truth will dispel myths. Getting it out there could go a very, very long way. Imagine, if it took off and parents parented, what the fruits would be!
Dogbertius - THAT is parenting.
I'm not sure why all the anti-violence posts are modded down, but here's another one.
That is easy, they are wrong and have an agenda. They directly insult those who are wiser.
As someone who has their own child and has been a foster carer for children who are much more challenging than anything most of you could imagine, I can say that I have never hit a child. NEVER. Hitting a child or even shouting at a child is a sign to that child that you have lost control.
In general, I would agree, however one could argue the moment a child does anything outside of instruction you have lost control. In the right circumstances, yelling can be good, albeit rarely. I fell the punishment when applicable should illustrate the consequences, even if not fully realized directly to the child. If a child is yelling for instance, and refuses to stop, yelling at them could convince them why it is not good to yell, depending on why the child was yelling. Lets say it was distracting a family member. Allow them to play the video game. They will be confused sure, but as soon as they get to a place where concentration is needed, let them have it. You have shown them courtesy by allowing them to play when they know they are wrong, and often you may find they will actually ask you to stop. Be creative in parenting, but be careful. Reaching for the belt every-time is disastrous.
There is never a reasonable form of assault.
What if the child is in the middle of hitting someone else and that is the only way? You have big fallacies in your arguments.
You are cowardly. You are inept parents.
You are the coward here. You even go by that name. Inept? Why. because they discipline? You think that because you parents abused you all parents that spank properly do? If this is what you teach your children, then sit you are inept.
There isn't much difference between "spanking" and "slapping." Getting hit in the butt is the same as getting hit on the face, just less effective. ....
When your child is physically big enough and mentally mature enough to assert dominance by force, then you need new, non-physical discipline tools. Spanking is only for a certain age range where it's effective and doesn't lead to physical fights (see OP -- they mentioned this quite clearly)
To everyone here, there is a lot of difference, as the (GP) pointed out.. I was 14 when my mom decided to slap me. That is when I knew it was time to leave. I would have respected her decision to spank me, but instead she slapped me. If anyone does not believe that there is a difference, why don't you be brave enough to try a little experiment. Allow someone to pop your bottom. Not so bad, was it? Stung a little. Now allow them to slap you. See? A slap in the face is a slap in the face. Slapping someone when they are mad at you only makes things worse. Properly spanking them can perform the (should be) intended action, of informing the child there will be consequences to actions.
You misinterpreted "instant reaction" to mean the parent instantly reacting to the situation with a slap, rather than the situation being instantly over after 1 slap. In the context of burning your finger versus lighting your arm on fire, burning your finger is over in an instant, and hopefully you've learned your lesson with no further action or harm necessary.
And here we have a Coward again trying to reinterpret what he was being said. without dissecting why he is wrong, have you ever known anyone to slap someone other than instantly? It just sends the wrong message. Spanking however, can send the right one. There are many factors, such as age but I bet you that they guy who got caned (Taiwan?) will no longer be trashing sports cars in a foreign country, or otherwise. Do I think it was overboard, perhaps. But it worked. Slapping him in the face, doubtful.
If we can pony up seven to eight hundred BILLION dollars because the banks got greedy, ...
Then why can't the Government be the Employer of Last Resort? We've got infrastructure falling around our ears, we've got social problems galore, why not simply take every unemployed person in America and put them to work fixing problems far too long neglected?
And yeah, let's put tax rates back to where they were in 1950 to pay for it, and ask any who complain why they hate America?
700,000,000,000 *1
/ 100,000 *2
/ 452,000 *3
gives,
15 *4
15 years of a $100,000 job would really turn things around for this country. It would allow them (including myself) to probably buy that house instead of renting that they have been wanting to. But right now, they are out of work. They could also buy the car that they need. (Even a green efficient one!) We wouldn't need to raise taxes either; anyone who tells you so is either a liar, or under a delusion. Doing the (simple) math just now has told me that Obama, and the whole entire government has sold us out to the bankers and to whoever ultimately controls them.
*1 - Seven hundred billion in bailouts which may be conservative as a Google search of "Total cost of bank bailouts" gives links indicating up to 4 trillion in Jan. and up to 23.7 trillion in July.
*2 - One hundred thousand dollars, which is a comfortable salary anywhere in America, or should be.
*3 - Four hundred and fifty two thousand reported 9 hours ago are unemployed right now according to Google search (news).
*4 - Fifteen years is how long the currently unemployed could be paid one hundred thousand dollars a year.
... everybody else is pretty much closed. So, if I stay with Google, my data is ready to leave, but I can't go anywhere else because it would get closed. I wonder if Google would be still so open with their products if the competition wasn't so dumb enough to screw their customers over and over again.
Fair question. I believe that the blog post answers it and says that yes, this is the best way, the future, and what has happened that has made so much possible already, by being open where it matters. Also, we see companies trying to jump on the bandwagon...
You better be glad I respond well to complements. Having said that, I need another prescription for my glasses! lol. And I am glad you refrained from ad hominem attacks. They are cheap, and not effective against me in my experience.
A vendor should be perfectly warranted in taking the Kernel and application layer, add a few proprietary extensions and a custom IU, and release it as a cohesive product without and obligation to license it to others. Yet this is precisely the behavior the Google wishes to prevent. ... Vendors using Android are free under the open license agreement to bundle it with as much closed and proprietary stuff as they want.
Sure, they wish to prevent the downsides. What is wrong with that? They "opened" it and that says something about their intentions as well.
They want to have their cake and eat it too. You can't. Ether you allow the inevitable fracturing and closed source bundling of your product, or you bite the bullet and put up restrictions on licensing that aren't allowed under open use.
Could they do it partly through diplomacy? That has seemed to work so far. To use your IBM example, could they implement a "stated" open standard of some sort, and a critical mass get on board which would effectively lock out smaller companies from hurting everyone else by going their own way? Perhaps I do not understand (or we both) the issue from both sides.
If the internet went all Silverlight in the next few years,
Uh oh...
Google would be dead. So they're committed to an open internet. Witness Chrome, ChromeOS and Android, all of which are made to keep the internet an open platform. Not a Google-controlled locked-down internet, like Microsoft has consistently tried to create (MSN, IE, ActiveX, Silverlight, etc...), but an open platform.
Phew, good thing the good guys can stand up to themselves. Righteousness in action, to the benefit of all!
Corporations are bound by laws that transcend the humans that operate them. Some day, who knows when, push will come to shove and unless Google acts in the interests of its *stockholders* rather than its *users*, they will be liable for being sued by their stock holders or the SEC. It may be a long way off or it may be next year, but they can't escape the fundamental change that becoming a public company has wrought upon them.
Firstly it is a good thing they are required to act in the interest of their shareholders, and why they are where they are now.
A publicly-traded company is required to maximize shareholder value in accordance with its prospectus.
Before a company goes public, it produces a prospectus. The prospectus details the business plan of the company, as well as its philosophy and self-imposed restrictions. It is the responsibility of the investor to read and understand the prospectus before investing. If the prospectus states that the company will place customer loyalty above short-term profit, then any lawsuit based on "the company didn't maximize short-term profit because they weren't pricks to their customers" will fail.
Secondly, here is the cool and amazing part. Brin and Page own 51% of the voting stock, so what they decide is best for the company, goes.
It all comes down to therefore do you trust Brin and Page. If what they have done and are doing now doesn't do it for you, then who do you trust?
You just confirmed that they want anything that isn't their core business to be open, while they want to keep their own stuff closed. The stuff that matters for their bottom line.
Not really, but so what of it if he was? What does that have to do with an open Internet being promoted and encouraging others to do the same? Aww, forget it.
Wow, you really are an apologist for Google, aren't you? you've been completely suckered in by their propaganda. What is this "standard" you speak of? Talking about themselves in a positive manner, making the company out to be "good guys" while at the same time mining your personal information for the purposes of marketing and advertising? Yeah, they certainly set that standard.
They sure did. There actions have made them out to be quite nice. And? You only prove my point there... thanks.
Why anybody would applaud this is another matter. It's very weird to see people who are fanboys of an advertising company.
When I started using the internet, the idea that it should be used to commercial purposes was anathema. The "standard" was that it was for research and free cultural exchange to benefit society. It's amazing to me that today not only is rampant commercialism on the internet tolerated, it's actively praised, and a company that's business has been pimping out the web for profit is seen as some kind of hero of openness.
Since you have started to use the Internet, times have changed. Marketing is anathema? You realize it is the system of cash flow that we get most of our media from, right? This personal information you speak of is required to market on that level, and return the quality of service on that level. Websites are not free, and unless they sell something they often need some income. I concede that paying for what you use directly may be better in principle, but then that would shutter advertising and the economy. (as it is setup now) Also it would keep information closed to many because they can't afford to pay for it. So yea, it is open.
If you do not want to be pimped, do not sniff the line of coke.
The reason that Google is so interesting is that they promote openness to a degree that few other tech companies do because it's in their best interest. If you assume that anyone should put your benefit above theirs, you will be constantly disappointed, but Google has discovered that in many areas peripheral to their core business they can benefit significantly by opening access to everyone and skimming ad revenue off the traffic. Opening source often pulls more people to the core technology, in turn generating ad revenue. It's important to remember that Google can do free thanks to ad revenue.
I believe it is in all business's best interest. Consider what he said about a smaller piece of a much bigger pie. While it make take more spending, Microsoft could have made the world better if they would not have raped everyone. The economy's growth would have more than likely made them even more successful. They are too greedy to see this. It is true we have been disappointed, but now that we have logical men running a big company that is willing to lead by example, perhaps others will wise up. If not, they will get run over. It matters not where or how they do free. Free is better than Microsoft, who is now paying for your searches in Bing, footing the bill for the codecs in Moonlight, etc. Maybe it all comes out in the wash. But as long as they do things legal and not anti-competitive (which they haven't), then I surmise it will.
Microsoft could say Google is right and change their practices. In ways they have by opening up the few things not legally forced (and they claimed was out of the goodness of their heart...) But high ranking staff members pride may keep them from doing so, as is often with poor hiring and business ethics.
In other words, they're being hypocritical. Or the author failed basic high school English composition.
"Open source is high quality code and benefits an open internet, but our lucrative search and ad products are closed, because opening them up would lower its quality." But isn't that the point of "open source" in the first place?
No, that isn't the point in the first place. They are not being hypocritical.
I fail to see why a free software developer wouldn't be insulted by such a condescending position.
I can see why, because they understand open software and search algorithms.
Oh, and Google panders to the Chinese censors too. What was that about an "open internet" again?
Panders is just FUD. It was break the link but give the URL (close enough!), or be censored entirely since Yahoo who was already there didn't take the stand and did in fact pander. That was a small win for an open internet.
Actually this was the part I thought was most disingenuous. Google has 4 times the market share of its nearest competitor! The barrier to entry in starting a new search engine is enormous - nearly impossible. It's not like 1999 when anybody with a server rack could have a good shot at indexing most of the internet. You physically can't do it without a data center so large that even just supplying power to it is a huge problem. To hold it up as an example where competition is easy and working is laughable.
To imply that Google is unbeatable due to their size is laughable. They are their size because they are the best. If you offer a superior product and service, people will go. Many people would go because they fear Google. But simply the public feels they are the best. Finally, you mean to tell me that Bing or Yahoo don't have the resources to beat Google? That is laughable, they don't have the smarts. Bing is willing to buy your searches, and they can't do it because it sucks so bad. Look, if you make a better product, you WILL get market share in time. Look what is happening to I.E.
I read it. Obviously they are going to say it would do more harm than good. I'm sure MS would say the same thing about removing DRM support from Windows.
Except we know it is obvious they would be wrong in that case...
We can speculate about the secondary bad effects opening their search algorithm might cause, but we know the primary effect would be more competition in search. That's Google's key reason for keeping it closed.
How do we know that? History has shown us making the source available would jeopardize the rankings, and that would most likely be the primary effect... once it takes hold, there won't be anything else left!.
Key reason... I tell you what, you tell me how to keep a multiperson input/output system from being molested without "any" restrictions **, and I will show you how to convince Google to open their search code.
** applicable
> since the first page on every search would be nothing but links to viagra and malware
That's just an assertion. It relies on an assumption that Google's algorithms have no real integrity and can be easily fooled.
No, it relies on all of the real world experience with search engines that have been fooled.
If you believe that "open wins", you should believe that we would see rapid improvement as people innovated around those algorithms.
Is it possible that opening the algorithms will simply allow them to be gamed and no one will find a way to make it foolproof? The rapid improvement you will see will be from those gaming the system.
But more to the point, it's not so much that they keep the algorithms closed that is offensive but that the whole post is about how there is some fundamental magical property about 'openness' that makes everything it touches turn to gold. And after paragraph upon paragraph of this he suddenly drops in "oh, except here and here because we say so".
He said where appropriate and gave examples where you can tell the difference. Good guy really.
You can't really have it both ways. Microsoft can just as easily assert that keeping SMB closed or making IE proprietary instead of standards based is "good for the internet" as Google can assert keeping their stuff closed.
Sure you can have it both ways. Open search = bad. Not getting your files does NOT equal good.
The fact is this: open does not always win.There are valid scenarios where it just doesn't work, where it's a losing proposition for everyone.
And here you are saying it is both ways... Do you realize you are agreeing with them?
The whole blog post is just a load of BS designed to smear Apple and Microsoft with a tag of not being Open while somehow keeping a halo on Google's head.
Where did they smear Apple or Microsoft? Where? Nowhere, that is where! If they are feeling condemned, it is by their own volition. If I say I helped a lady across the street, does that mean you are a bad person? Of course not! You may be *better* for not boasting and have already done it yourself. But here, they are saying we need to clarify what open means to us. And we should thank them for it, as Apple or Microsoft has not done this. Even if they were saying they are wearing a halo, good. Then when it falls off people like you will come rushing in to make them stand back up straight.
Anyway, the only thing Google did to gain that revenue was to actually pay site owners what they owed. That's it. It's the "be mediocre, but also don't fuck up" strategy that's worked so well for Microsoft over the years.
Sounds like they gave them exactly what they could ask for. Because messing up and making payouts at the time wasn't actually extraordinary, as you illustrated. Well, I guess they could give them a rubdown and a shiatsu, so that they won't be mediocre.
What does *any* of that have to do with open source? Nothing.
Nothing, except to them it is a valid reason not to open it.
"Gaming" the algorithms has zilch to do with seeing the source.
Anyone can "game" Google.
"Gaming" only needs the ability to supply an input (put up a web page, submit it for indexing) and view an output (run a search and see the ranking).
You are right in that anyone can try to game Google. But someone who knows the exact inner workings should be able to know how to totally skew it. They seem to be happy with how it works, and 2 billion searches a day say the public is as well. Could they change it? Sure, but then it would not be the same as it is now, delivering search goodness.
It's not like SEOs actually pay Google to see their source or anything.
And let's not even mention the Google "webmaster tools". Those should be
the first to go if "gaming" was the top priority.
I believe they balance priorities. So, since Counter-Strike can be "gamed" (cheated) Valve should throw out the ability to use my home PC, and my mouse and keyboard since I can "play" online? No, human moderation is the answer.
The reason they want the internet open is because that is where they make their money. No other reason. Nothing noble.
*Can't be anything else?* How do you know this? You don't. You are just spreading FUD. So, if I donate to a charity, is that just to make myself money, or myself look good? Never for a noble reason?
Grants and Investments
Google.org has committed over $100 million in grants and investments. These include:
Clean Energy
* Makani Power Inc.: $15 million investment to support R&D on high-altitude wind energy extraction technologies aimed at producing utility-scale power cheaper than coal.
* eSolar Inc. and BrightSource Energy, Inc.: $10 million investments in each to support R&D on solar thermal power to produce utility-scale power cheaper than coal.
* AltaRock Energy, Inc: $6.25 million investment in EGS technologies and project development to support the advancement of enhanced geothermal systems.
* Potter Drilling: $4 million investment in two tranches focused on developing hard rock drilling breakthrough technologies for EGS.
* Southern Methodist University Geothermal Lab: $489,521 grant to improve geothermal resource assessment techniques and update the Geothermal Map of North America.
* U.S. National Academy of Sciences: $250,000 grant for a study that will develop recommendations for U.S.-Chinese cooperation on renewable electricity.
* Stanford University: $135,000 award to increase the power output per advanced geothermal well.
* San Diego State University: $239,504 grant to develop a small particle solar receiver that can absorb concentrated sunlight directly into a gas to operate a Brayton cycle system and generate electricity.
RechargeIT
* Aptera Motors and ActaCell: $2.75 million investment to support the development of technologies that will enable widespread commercialization of plug-in electric vehicles
* Brookings Institution: $200,000 to support a conference in spring 2008 on federal policy to promote plug-in hybrids
* CalCars: $200,000 multi-year grant to the California Cars Initiative to support their work educating the public about plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)
* Electric Power Research Institute: $200,000 to support EPRI's plug-in vehicle research and development program including participating in advanced infrastructure development, vehicle-to-grid technology demonstrations, and studies of the environmental and economic benefits of plug-ins
* Rocky Mountain Institute: $200,000 to partially fund an 'Innovation Workshop' to promote new strategies for greater production and market adoption of plug-in next-generation hybrid vehicles
* Dr. Willett Kempton at University of Delaware: $150,000 for megawatt plug-in to grid research and implementation planning
* Plug-In America: $100,000 to raise public awareness of and to advocate for plug-in transportation options
Global Health
Predict and Prevent
* ICIPE and partners: $5M multi-year grant for discovery and surveillance of insect-carried infectious diseases, such as Rift Valley fever, in Kenya.
* FaceAids: $200K grant to establish a Global Health Fellowships program.
* Southern African Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance (SACIDS) through GHSI: $500K for the establishment of the Southern Africa Center for Infectious Disease Surveillance.
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS): $100K grant as a contribution to the report "The US Commitment to Globa
He also said: but if you publish *my* personal info that's on the net, I'll fuckin' blacklist you.
He may have been wrong for that. I say may as I need more information. Really though, they could have been more tactful than to post his information. I mean you are right, they got it from Google, so it was publicly available. Blacklisting didn't change that, so I think he was sending a clear message, "you overstepped the line" and was a warning to all that just because you disagree you may not want to compile someone's information and post it on the web together. Am I making excuses? Or is it different? I need more info, like I said. But I wouldn't be happy and would not think it was "cool" in the least, even if I knew I was wrong. I may also find it quite unacceptable and feel the need to set an example. There are other ways.
Well, perhaps we shouldn't be making search rankings a "game" in the first place?
He said winning conditions, not a game. But some see everything as a game, i.e. survival of the fittest. That is life.
Systems like this are designed to allow everyone to participate without being able to exercise undue influence.
So, wouldn't opening the algorithms up result in less undue influence? After all, everybody can see how it works, therefore it can be modified to eliminate such influences. As it stands, Google has complete control, and we don't know what influences are being exerted on it.
No, it would result in more. They would know exactly what strings to pull. There will always be strings. They can get lucky and guess, but like cheating anything on a massive scale, human moderation (i.e. even just changing how it works over time) can help negate this. As far as knowing what influences are being exerted on it, all we have to do is search to find out how Page Ranks acts. Then we can see how it influences the query returns...
And thanks ajs, I wish I wold have seen your post before responding to dangitman.
And the friends that I have that are mechanics that are not trying to charge me will tell me to let them see it if need be. But if I tell them it is making a clicking sound when I turn, they may say put it in reverse and if it clicks immediately with the wheel turned, you need to change your CVs. I am not a mechanic, but I have done it and helped others. It can be done as well as diagnosing a computer over the phone, which entirely depends on the aptitude and knowledge on the person on the other end of the line to be successful, almost ever. But some things will be easier obviously "hands on". Still a horrible analogy and I think he should try to come at me with something better.