The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: fatcat on December 02, 2009, 05:04:16 PM
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/6710934/Google-to-limit-free-access-to-online-news.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/6710934/Google-to-limit-free-access-to-online-news.html)
Under the new Google initiative, publishers can join a special program, known as First Click Free, which allows Google to index content on the publisher's website but prevents users from reading other articles on that site without first registering or signing up to a subscription package.
*wretches*
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/6710934/Google-to-limit-free-access-to-online-news.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/6710934/Google-to-limit-free-access-to-online-news.html)
Under the new Google initiative, publishers can join a special program, known as First Click Free, which allows Google to index content on the publisher's website but prevents users from reading other articles on that site without first registering or signing up to a subscription package.
*wretches*
This is a reaction to NewsCorp /Rupert Murdoch taking action against Google linking to free articles in the Wall Street Journal. Thats why they're calling it Google's initiative, kinda like saying "in before..." in a forum. Everyone else in print media will band-wagon jump along with Murdoch, so Goog is beating them to the punch, so they look like a forerunner to trends in web-stuff, yet again. Instead of looking like they're a bunch of Bozo's behind the eight-ball.
Its like Sony pioneering the CD. Format dominance is everything. If the majority of media finds Google's method acceptable, they'll acquiesce to it. And most media will do whatever Google says, because Google is smarter than most media. I hope it leaves Murdoch out in the cold with dick in hand, looking like a rogue asshole. I would love for him to lose a pissing match against Google. Because he's a fucking truth-altering piece of garbage spin-master who is obviously not in favor of media neutrality.
-
Google has minimal vendor lock-in power, and as the cost of supercomputer hardware declines so does the cost of competing with them.
-
Google has minimal vendor lock-in power, and as the cost of supercomputer hardware declines so does the cost of competing with them.
LOL
-
What's your major malfunction this time, Drifter, are you confusing "vendor lock-in" with "brand recognition"?
-
What's your major malfunction this time, Drifter, are you confusing "vendor lock-in" with "brand recognition"?
No. I just winced at the thought of competing with Google because I can buy cheap supercomputers.
Its a terrible plan.
-
What's your major malfunction this time, Drifter, are you confusing "vendor lock-in" with "brand recognition"?
No. I just winced at the thought of competing with Google because I can buy cheap supercomputers.
Its a terrible plan.
Not really. It's the name and their basic free service strategy you have to beat. The latter probably impossible to beat, the former not so much as there's some online dislike for Google's Big Brotherish nature.
-
What's your major malfunction this time, Drifter, are you confusing "vendor lock-in" with "brand recognition"?
No. I just winced at the thought of competing with Google because I can buy cheap supercomputers.
Its a terrible plan.
Not really. It's the name and their basic free service strategy you have to beat. The latter probably impossible to beat, the former not so much as there's some online dislike for Google's Big Brotherish nature.
Some online dislike. Yeah, I know. Multiply that online dislike by a million, it might start to approach one percent. You seem to forget, you are abnormal. And I mean no disrespect, its not the insulting usage of the word. But for every one of you, there are probably about 10,000 who have no feelings of hostility whatsoever about Goog. And thats probably lowballin' it.
Granted, that niche would be sizable enough to make some money off. If (big if) that slim minority would all lemming to one other device (for lack of a better word). But they're quirky, and scattered, and each geek of that nature has his own particulars. Some likes "this" some likes "that", some likes the other.
What could it possibly take to bring them all home? A benevolent, open-source freeware probably, wikipedia-like, where there are no ulterior motives except to freely disseminate data to whoever participates. Like one big fuckin' torrent that we all host the stream in a cloud. But then, who would get paid? Probably nobody. Which renders the concept of the aforementioned supercomputers useless, ridiculous, impossible, expensive, goofy, gay and stupid. If the template resides on your machine, and the data populates by query, it need not be hosted centrally. Your ad would be hosted by yourself, and your encouragement would be throughput bandwidth allocation resulting in higher rank. Fatter pipes, more hits. Right?
The only thing big enough to crush goog is that which is bigger, and that is the net itself. Thats the only way Ham-heads "vendor lock-in" would abandon goog. He's thinking little popcorn-fart shit about servers and whatnot. Mr big-fuckin-scientific computerman. You can't beat the giant with another giant, can't be done. Its gotta be organic, cellular. I donno what the fux with that russian, Brede. He's like smart covered in retard sauce. Explain to him that which I cannot properly articulate, would'ja? Supercomputers, jesus, what is this, the sixties? Fifteen years out, he's in 1986. Fuck. There is no privacy in servers, whoever owns them will ultimately be owned. But in an ownerless flood, everyone is anonymous if they want to be. If you have a few gigs dedicated to constantly being overwritten while you're connected to the flood, you can't be held responsible for whats in it. Thats probably the end of the nets, huge pipes, stacked chips, and just wooosh, will they ever allow that? Probly not.
-
Since many Free Staters want to build something equivalent of Internet 2.0 in New Hampshire, I'm pretty sure that it'd be possible to compete with Google there. Local ownership of communications infrastructure can mean lighting-fast connectivity, and it can mean total "we keep no logs, anyone can come and audit that fact" privacy, and it can also mean resilience. If the government shuts off the main Internet, all spidered resources can still be available through the local search engine's cache & acceleration proxy, along with locally-hosted interactive services like forums, chat-rooms, VoIP, etc.
-
Since many Free Staters want to build something equivalent of Internet 2.0 in New Hampshire, I'm pretty sure that it'd be possible to compete with Google there. Local ownership of communications infrastructure can mean lighting-fast connectivity, and it can mean total "we keep no logs, anyone can come and audit that fact" privacy, and it can also mean resilience. If the government shuts off the main Internet, all spidered resources can still be available through the local search engine's cache & acceleration proxy, along with locally-hosted interactive services like forums, chat-rooms, VoIP, etc.
Sounds great. All vegetables in an inhospitable climate, disconnected from the mainland. Are you a chicom double agent, Libman? maybe they'll let you build a wall, too, and surround it with barbed wire to keep them "out".
I'll send ya a postcard with some tits on it.
-
I don't believe in disconnecting from the "mainland" - in fact I'm a big fan of globalization and free trade. But having freedom in the era of big government means having some degree of self-reliance when it comes to survival essentials. Would you hire a farm worker in Guatemala to carry your firearms for you as well?
The climate is not inhospitable, and with a one-time investment in greenhouses you can grow anything anywhere. (Best discussed on (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=19215) other (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=29041) threads (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=31494).)
-
I don't believe in disconnecting from the "mainland" - in fact I'm a big fan of globalization and free trade. But having freedom in the era of big government means having some degree of self-reliance when it comes to survival essentials. Would you hire a farm worker in Guatemala to carry your firearms for you as well?
The climate is not inhospitable, and with a one-time investment in greenhouses you can grow anything anywhere. (Best discussed on (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=19215) other (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=29041) threads (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=31494).)
In guatemala, no. In Costa Rica, yes.
I'm not worried about no crops. I'll just send my bitches out to the grocery store.
-
It's fine to import paprika,
Or a girl named Enrica,
Or other exoti-ca,
From Costa Rica.
And it's fine to watch Arreola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jairo_Arreola)
Scoring goals for his Guatemala.
And I don't care if your ugly Corolla,
Is washed by the Iranian Ayatollah!
But, when it comes to Free Shires seceding,
For them to have any chance of succeeding,
(With all the Coös County frenchie inbreeding
And Rockingham with its Massholes stampeding)
We need to be ploughing, we need to be seeding!
Agricultural manuals we should be reading,
On mulching and planting and reaping and weeding!
Beans we'll be soaking, dough we'll be kneading!
So later, much later, we won't be pleading
Food imports that Washington won't be conceding.
Free shires sovereign! Ourselves we'll be feeding!
-
Thats a bunch of Bolshevik
-
More Zionist that Bolshevik, but I don't give a fuck
Whose ideas I am borrowing, as long as they don't suck!
Sure, kibbutz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz) were collectivist, but don't be a schmuck,
They had the right idea, and their movement stuck.
So grow yourself some lemons, load them on a truck,
And haul 'em to free marketplace, 5 big'uns for a buck!
(PS: I have other threads about being frugal (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=31494),
But isn't this thread all about Google?)
-
s/that/than/
-
Necro.
Buying supercomputers is easy. Building a search engine is hard. Look at Microsoft; after several years and two rebrandings they still haven't managed to build a search engine that doesn't completely suck ass. Hell, they're having to PAY people to use it!
-
Everything is relative. Bing, Yahoo, and a hundred other search engines out there don't really "suck ass", they just "suck ass compared to Google". The clustering revolution is still in its infancy - a few years from now it will seem barbaric that all computers / video game consoles in your household couldn't share CPU, GPU, memory, and network resources for better performance, and the same can be done via the Internet as well. If crowd-sourcing can create something like Wikipedia, building an open source volunteer-powered search cloud will be a piece of cake.