Why Google is a necessary evil
-
"Thanks boss. Could you pay me as well as she is paid then?"
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
"Sure. When you look as good as Marissa, or hell freezes over. Whichever comes first."
-
martin_hughes wrote:
What is it with Western Governments selling off stuff that should be in the hands of the people
There's a big difference between "the people" and "the government," even though the latter usually claims to be the former.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
They claim they represent the people. Additionally there is a difference between "the people" and "a private corporation", even though the latter claims even more ridiculous things.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
They claim they represent the people. Additionally there is a difference between "the people" and "a private corporation", even though the latter claims even more ridiculous things.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
They claim they represent the people.
Yes, they certainly do, don't they?
peterchen wrote:
Additionally there is a difference between "the people" and "a private corporation",
Or "a public corporation." 'Tis probably wise to remember that "the people" are not the same as a corporation or a government.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
What is it with Western Governments selling off stuff that should be in the hands of the people? I mean surely telecoms companies should be bidding for a licence to broadcast on a particular frequency (or range of), not actually owning the damned things?
martin_hughes wrote:
What is it with Western Governments selling off stuff that should be in the hands of the people?
Short-term revenue raising. Classic example was Australia's Howard gov't of the 90's-early 2k's, selling off the majority the gov't owned, nation-wide telecommunications corporation Telstra. Before being corporatised, Telecom Australia was a world leader in many technology areas (e.g. fibre-optics, mobile communications) and after was a pure profit machine, generating in excess of AU$1B annually. Promoted as "A chance for all Australians to own a piece of Telstra" (never mind that all Australians already owned Telstra - through their representative body, the Federal Gov't - as opposed to only those who could afford the purchase-price of the minimum allotment), the Howard Gov't raised a bucket of cash & touted their budget surpluses for years as proof of their economic know-how (all the while public services going down-hill in a big way :mad:). No doubt now that the sale profits have dwindled away, the political party of the former Howard gov't, now in opposition, will point at the new gov't and say they're incompetent when they bring in budgets in deficit of (I'll bet) about AU$1B annually :mad:. Of course Howard looked good on paper to the casual observer but by the time the deficit hits the fan, he & his compadres will be (actually already are) long gone & it'll be someone else's mess to clean up :mad:.
T-Mac-Oz
-
See, the problem is that whatever people say, regardless of the advertising, regardless of the "fluff"....Google returns the best results....
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
RichardGrimmer wrote:
See, the problem is that whatever people say, regardless of the advertising, regardless of the "fluff"....Google returns the best results
And see, this is exactly why I will still fight in arguments against Microsoft, not as a mindless "DOWN WITH THE MAN!" argument, but because of this very issue. I'm not a big fan of monopolies, but I'll recognize if a monopoly has a good reason, like Google. Google is so big because frankly, they're the best. The opinion that they are the best is widely held, so when people think of searching, they mostly will go to Google because they either feel or have heard, that it will be the best tool for the job. Microsoft, however, is so big because a long time ago, they were the best, and because the higher-ups are (for the most part) very very business-savvy. That's my issue with them. They are a technology company, but really, the products they release are not their forte. They are a very good *business*. They managed to get in bed with enough manufacturers that basically, Average Joe can't get a computer without Windows, IE, Works/Office, whatever. They have taken the idea of an operating system and corrupted it. And because most non-tech-geek people are too lazy to fight back against that, they just go with the flow. Then, the software companies don't bother to port their software to any other operating system, so even those of us who would prefer something non-MS, if we want to do anything more than the absolute basics, we either have to write it ourselves or go digging for someone who wrote it and hope it does what we want. OK, OK, so I'm getting worked up, and I should calm down. But my overall point here is that if MS was tops because their products were the best, I wouldn't rail against them. But instead, they're tops because early on they hooked the masses and then deftly squashed any competition. And like a tick, they settled in for a nice long parasitical drink. All I can hope is that one day, enough people will get disgusted with them, their products (at least Vista helped there) and their business practices (their failed bid to buy out Yahoo!, thank God), that they'll FINALLY be willing to break out of the "Because it was already there, and I don't want to take the time to learn anything new" mentality and actually put some BRAINPOWER into their computer decisions, and MS will have to actually *gasp* INNOVATE something! Either that or tank trying. ::prepares to dodge flames:: <
-
RichardGrimmer wrote:
See, the problem is that whatever people say, regardless of the advertising, regardless of the "fluff"....Google returns the best results
And see, this is exactly why I will still fight in arguments against Microsoft, not as a mindless "DOWN WITH THE MAN!" argument, but because of this very issue. I'm not a big fan of monopolies, but I'll recognize if a monopoly has a good reason, like Google. Google is so big because frankly, they're the best. The opinion that they are the best is widely held, so when people think of searching, they mostly will go to Google because they either feel or have heard, that it will be the best tool for the job. Microsoft, however, is so big because a long time ago, they were the best, and because the higher-ups are (for the most part) very very business-savvy. That's my issue with them. They are a technology company, but really, the products they release are not their forte. They are a very good *business*. They managed to get in bed with enough manufacturers that basically, Average Joe can't get a computer without Windows, IE, Works/Office, whatever. They have taken the idea of an operating system and corrupted it. And because most non-tech-geek people are too lazy to fight back against that, they just go with the flow. Then, the software companies don't bother to port their software to any other operating system, so even those of us who would prefer something non-MS, if we want to do anything more than the absolute basics, we either have to write it ourselves or go digging for someone who wrote it and hope it does what we want. OK, OK, so I'm getting worked up, and I should calm down. But my overall point here is that if MS was tops because their products were the best, I wouldn't rail against them. But instead, they're tops because early on they hooked the masses and then deftly squashed any competition. And like a tick, they settled in for a nice long parasitical drink. All I can hope is that one day, enough people will get disgusted with them, their products (at least Vista helped there) and their business practices (their failed bid to buy out Yahoo!, thank God), that they'll FINALLY be willing to break out of the "Because it was already there, and I don't want to take the time to learn anything new" mentality and actually put some BRAINPOWER into their computer decisions, and MS will have to actually *gasp* INNOVATE something! Either that or tank trying. ::prepares to dodge flames:: <
-
Google started with the motto 'Do No Evil', and while their application of this policy may be in question by some, and while they are undoubtedly a monopoly when it comes to search (and getting close when it comes to online advertising) I have to say I'm happy they will not let the big dogs stick to their old tricks Google Wants Open Access Pledge from Verizon[^] "Verizon is not free to self-define the rule to exclude any and all Verizon devices," the filing reads. "The commission must ensure that Verizon understands that this license obligation means what it says: any apps, any devices." Excellent.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
What is it with Western Governments selling off stuff that should be in the hands of the people? I mean surely telecoms companies should be bidding for a licence to broadcast on a particular frequency (or range of), not actually owning the damned things?
-
Google started with the motto 'Do No Evil', and while their application of this policy may be in question by some, and while they are undoubtedly a monopoly when it comes to search (and getting close when it comes to online advertising) I have to say I'm happy they will not let the big dogs stick to their old tricks Google Wants Open Access Pledge from Verizon[^] "Verizon is not free to self-define the rule to exclude any and all Verizon devices," the filing reads. "The commission must ensure that Verizon understands that this license obligation means what it says: any apps, any devices." Excellent.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
If I search for "adesso keyboards" I would expect the manufacturer to be fairly close to the top of the first 20 items. From Google it was half way down page 2 having been gazumped by a truckload of shopping sites - that's maybe not evil, but it's also not helpful. Another search engine had the manufacturer as the 3rd entry,
TUT Reward Excellent Mistakes, Punish Mediocre Successes
-
Actually, that's a good point. MS isn't feeding, we're just feeding off of them. I hadn't really thought of it that way!
You probably haven't thought about it that way because the analogy doesn't work. Parasites feed off an unwilling or ignorant host. In Microsoft’s case their support for the development community is very much a conscious commitment. Either way parasites are normally completely dependent on their hosts to survive, sensible developers should be able to adapt.