Derpa-derp! Built off the back of my hard-earned tax money!Quote:
the Internet was originally conceived and built by DARPA with funding from the US government and the WWW was developed by CERN which also gets government funding from several nations.
..oh wait, I wasn't alive then. Ok, my parents hard-earned tax money! Lawlz. : )
(hm, that sounded like sarcasm, but I'm in agreement with Alex)
But Big Pharma's been doing this for years as well: take publicly-funded health studies and drug tests and use them to sell more stuff... and anything they add to the knowledge, is thuper-thecret! Maybe pharm research needs a GPL-style license...
Actually, my comment was thinking more of a lessening of the <BLINK>-tag mentality on the web... if you have to PAY to have those fancy useless JS effects, maybe you'll think twice about using them : ) And, kind of a joke of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChronicalMaster
Alex just beat me to the fact that the internet is built upon the ISO open-standards OSI model, and the TCP/IP is a protocol stack. The DoD had a ARPANET (like Skynet in Terminator ;)). Eventually UNIX got ported with TCP/IP as default since the DoD model couldn't cope with rapid growth.
Why doesn't anybody read the document. IT'S ONLY TWO PAGES.
If you read it, you would see that it specifically talks about preventing ISP's from adversely affecting ordinary users. The only thing the documents hints to a "tiered" internet (it's not) is to allow ISP's to provide services which are different from connecting to the internet in the traditional manner, but may allow access to internet related-content.
Y'know, like Google.tv?
or say, like a members-only iTunes-like curated app-store (additional content which does not affect ordinary users).
The main point about additional services is: if you don't want it, you don't need to pay for it, because it's not supposed to affect how you use the internet anyway.
So, didn't Comcast/ATT/big corp fund the construction of miles of cable and fiberoptic lines? That's what I was thinking of... Am I wrong there too? (Don't have time right now to go research it.)
There's a lot of Chicken Little in this thread.
Aside from "premium" services separate from the public internet (a faster, less laggy gaming connection? Yes please. I'd pay for that.), there is also the consideration of things like Internet2, which I'm pretty sure already has a separate (and higher) cost than "public" internet.
You might like a book I picked up: Critical Mass. It's worth it just for the history of physics in the beginning!Quote:
I know people like to treat economics like physics, but it's more a branch of psychology; it doesn't work logically.
No, but the description of Hobbes' theory of the rules governing man and how poorly that was received reminds me of it[SSR]. It also mentioned that Galileo was forced by the Church to take back his words, publicly, about motion. I never knew that.
I don't understand why it's being presented as such a complicated issue. My believe is that net neutrality means:
- I pay for access to internet and for a certain speed and bandwidth.
- The provider can and may not decide which packages of data get to me faster and the provider can and may not allow or disallow certain packages.
So net neutrality means that for the provider it doesn't matter if I visit website A or B, they are both just bits being sent over the line. With the same speed. If I want more speed, I pay extra to the internet provider and both sites A and B load faster.
This is what the whole internet is build upon, this is what everyone wants, right? In what way is Google or Verizon able to change this?
Google is one of the leading SE's doing business. No one can think about it. The most part of the SE market is captured by the giant Google. So I think there is no alternative for Google.
1. Limit FCC jurisdiction (that's good, let's limit the FCC power to the areas and actions where they're appropriate)
2. Create a standards body (OK, we've already got the W3C, but maybe Google knows more than I do. Maybe we need to create another new internet bureaucracy. That sucks, but if we have to [and Google says we do] then I guess we have to.)
On that level, it's not an unreasonable proposal. I think if this is what's necessary to get net neutrality done and codified appropriately, then the majority of us can swallow that horse pill.
Problem 1: The proposal which the FCC is considering also requests exceptions for “reasonable network management” and “lawful” content. As you've pointed out these are terribly easy ways for carriers to screw around with net neutrality. When other groups have proposed similar exceptions, Google itself has been among the leaders saying that doesn't fly. So WHAT are they doing in Google's own proposal.
Problem 2: Why does Wireless technology get a virtual pass on Net Neutrality, according the proposal wireless would only be required to satisfy the transparency requirements of net neutrality. That is certainly NOT net neutral.
Problem 3: More importantly, “additional online services” are excluded. The EFF analysis of Google's proposal notes that most new innovation will occur in these areas.
"much of the innovation we expect to occur in the future will involve services “distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services." If discrimination is allowed for all such things, then there could easily be little left on the “neutral” part of the Internet in a few years."
These are major issues, most of which Google itself has opposed. That's one of the key reasons this smells bad. I think it's entirely fair to judge Google by the same criteria they've championed for so many years. I just ask Google to live up to the same standards they've required everyone else to live up to. :)
Wow, what a spectacular twisting of the statement Alex! Jerrac did not imply that business activity takes higher precedence than criminal activity; that a crime can be nullified if done commercially. It's a huge stretch for you to infer that from what he wrote. Really huge.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDawson
Sorry but I don't agree, various things that Jerrac has stated (some of which is seriously packed with misinformation) have lead me to believe that it's exactly what he's implying. Whether he is or otherwise is up for interpretation (and I'm only stating my opinion) but the quoted statement below below explicitly implies a correlation to the notion that he's saying a businesses ability to operate freely holds more precedence (in his mind) than the government preventing potentially criminal activities.
Interpret the above as you will, but to me it suggests that capitalism and opportunism (or what level of legality is undeclared) is preferential to regulatory compliance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrac
We used to have that. And we got:Quote:
I'd much rather have a big company that I know will be seeking to get as much money from me as they can, than have a government playing games with all kinds of hard to understand regulations.
-rats in the sausage
-sawdust in the flour
It took a very long time for these to get regulated. Politicians who were pro-free-market were against those regulations then and are against them today. They believe things like the above would eventually go away because the market "would sort itself out". However, actual buying habits of human beings and marketing habits of investors show that it doesn't work that way. And usually, if there is real flour for sale and sawdust-with-flour for sale, the poor will choose the sawdust, because it's cheaper and the other option is no flour at all. A company can argue "hey, we're making flour an actual OPTION for people. We're the good guys".
I believe Google has outgrown it's usefulness because:
-search results are biased towards large corporations (adwords, products, images, video). Almost everywhere you look Google promotes paid results or its own products. Everyday Google makes search results more impossible for small mom and pop business. Alternative: Bing. Yes MS sucks but their market share is so small and there is no competition so I don't mind helping them out to dethrone Google.
-gmail. Liked it before but feel Google is more and more evil everyday. Mining personal information to serve ads is just the start to what they can do with your personal information and it might be sold to the highest bidder once their display ad revenue starts shrinking. Alternatives: not much but seriously Hotmail just released an update with ok features, or host your own and deal with spam.
-docs. If you are a business why on earth would you let a marketing company (google) know any of your business secrets? Stay away from docs and use Open Office or MS Office
-Google voice - interesting product but again I don't want a marketing company recording my calls or using my personal info in any way. Alternatives - skype or setup own (not that hard).
-youtube. useful if you can sort out the trash. When they start plastering the site with ads you can expect it to loose market share. Alternatives - hulu and many others
... of course G has more products but the competition is not that bad... give others a try and you will not be disappointed. Google does not run the world and keeps digging it's own grave every day. There is a reason even Google employees protested against Google and their stance on net neutrality. Just another reason to not trust or do business with Google.
W3Counter or Mint, alternatively you could have a look at the Wikipedia page List of web analytics software.
As for advertising you could have a look at BuySellAds or see the Wikipedia page List of advertising networks.
Hope that helps you in finding alternatives to Google :) As for an alterative search engine there are many out there, as I'm sure you already know, the choice is more personal than anything, so if you have such strong negative feelings towards Google then perhaps you should definitely choose another search engine to use whether it is slower or not.
Some of my sites use AWstats. They're good enough, but not as detailed as some of the paid-for stuff.
Newviewit, the problem with your comments is that they are mostly highly irrational and don't reflect very well on reality. :)
My dislike of Google is very real for myself and various people in the industry that I talk to on a daily basis across numerous internet verticals.
Of course everyone has a right to their opinion.
Could you be so kind as to enlighten me with your rational argument and why most of what I say is irrational?
1. making sure that people have health insurance instead of dying
2. spending any money to stimulate the economy since business will take care of everyone
So, I don't believe it's fair to say that Alex or anyone is accusing anyone of being Hitler based on these comments. There are millions of people in the US alone who proudly declare these positions everyday. If you are upset that you look evil when someone says such things about you... well... then stop actively campaigning that you're going to do exactly those things when you get elected. This is not a particularly complicated solution.
If it's a topic that you want to bring up and talk about, then fine. Let's talk about it. Just don't bring it up and then get mad because you realize what it sounds like when someone else quotes it back to you. And there's certainly no reason to get mad at us.
ditch google analytics with http://piwik.org/ open source