But google is also voluntary.
WTF is the big deal with cookies? What are you people so afraid of? They can't do anything!
Here's the problem as I see it. I work in the medical field and have been involved computers since the VIC-20 days (what's a vic-20?).[/b]
But the great thing about the Internet is, what's the government going to do if people on the internet just refuse to comply? They couldn't stop DeCSS.
I'M A REMOTE VIEWING SMARTASS!
Shaddup.
I mean when I look at the problems in our country, so many of them are rich people fucking over poorer people....with the help of government. As taxes rise, income inequality rises along with it. It's no accident.
I would just feel like such a slave if I couldn't cross a street or walk down a sidewalk without signing a contract or paying someone for permission to use his "property". But that's sorta off-subject ;)
Since the sidewalk is in front of a business, the business would own it, or maybe the local chamber of commerce. The owner wouldn't charge you to use it because he or she would want you to feel at ease and thus more likely to buy something from him or her.
This week, Robert X. Cringely makes some interesting observations (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html) as to what Google's up to next. He theorizes that Google is looking to create a bandwidth shortage that will drive ISP / cable / telephone customers into it's open arms (often with the blessing of the ISP / cable / telephone company). The evidence: leasing massive amounts of network capacity, and huge data centers in rural areas (close to power-generation facilities). The shortage will only occur if the average bandwidth consumption by individual consumers skyrockets; think mainstream BitTorrent, streaming moves from NetFlix, tv episodes from iTunes, video games on demand, etc, etc. Spooky and sinister, or sublime and smart?
Technology companies have come under fire for providing equipment or software that permits governments to censor information or monitor the online or offline activities of their citizens. For example, last year, Google's approach to the China market was criticized over its creation of a censored, local version of its search engine. Microsoft, Google, and two other technology companies will develop a code of conduct (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/011907-microsoft-google-agree-to-ngo.html) with a coalition of nongovernmental organizations (NGO) to promote freedom of expression and privacy rights, they announced Friday. The two companies along with Yahoo, and Vodafone Group said the new guidelines are the result of talks with Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.
Some of you may know that Google's company motto is "Don't be evil." Well that might have been the case a couple of years back, but times have changed greatly, and so has Google's attitude towards privacy.So? Seriously, this is total bullshit. It's a cookie. Most pages on the web use them. You can easily clear them.
This excerpt from http://www.google-watch.org made me question this company and many other search engines in that matter.
1. Google's immortal cookie:
Google was the first search engine to use a cookie that expires in 2038. This was at a time when federal websites were prohibited from using persistent cookies altogether. Now it's years later, and immortal cookies are commonplace among search engines; Google set the standard because no one bothered to challenge them. This cookie places a unique ID number on your hard disk. Anytime you land on a Google page, you get a Google cookie if you don't already have one. If you have one, they read and record your unique ID number.
Every site does this too, including FTL. Apache and Win servers both record all this stuff (except the cookie ID, but FTL's BBS uses a cookie and it records it). Your IP address isn't private, so what's the deal with this? You give them your IP address every time you connect unless you're using a proxy.
2. Google records everything they can:
For all searches they record the cookie ID, your Internet IP address, the time and date, your search terms, and your browser configuration. Increasingly, Google is customizing results based on your IP number. This is referred to in the industry as "IP delivery based on geolocation."
3. Google retains all data indefinitely:Once again: a company is allowed to save the information you give them, unless contracted with you to do otherwise. Don't give that company information you want to keep private, as with any company.
Google has no data retention policies. There is evidence that they are able to easily access all the user information they collect and save.
4. Google won't say why they need this data:What they do with user submitted information is up to them. They're probably contracted not to give it out or sell it, but they don't have to tell the world what they do with it internally.
Inquiries to Google about their privacy policies are ignored. When the New York Times (2002-11-28) asked Sergey Brin about whether Google ever gets subpoenaed for this information, he had no comment.
5. Google hires spooks:Perhaps, or maybe they're just really interested in security. Either way, many many companies syphon people out of government jobs.
Matt Cutts, a key Google engineer, used to work for the National Security Agency. Google wants to hire more people with security clearances, so that they can peddle their corporate assets to the spooks in Washington.
6. Google's toolbar is spyware:This is a little shady if it's still true, but hey, don't download the search bar. It also says "with the advanced features enabled" which makes me think that by default the toolbar doesn't do this. Someone with one should check.
With the advanced features enabled, Google's free toolbar for Explorer phones home with every page you surf, and yes, it reads your cookie too. Their privacy policy confesses this, but that's only because Alexa lost a class-action lawsuit when their toolbar did the same thing, and their privacy policy failed to explain this. Worse yet, Google's toolbar updates to new versions quietly, and without asking. This means that if you have the toolbar installed, Google essentially has complete access to your hard disk every time you connect to Google (which is many times a day). Most software vendors, and even Microsoft, ask if you'd like an updated version. But not Google. Any software that updates automatically presents a massive security risk.
Agreed. Not everyone may though.
7. Google's cache copy is illegal:
Judging from Ninth Circuit precedent on the application of U.S. copyright laws to the Internet, Google's cache copy appears to be illegal. The only way a webmaster can avoid having his site cached on Google is to put a "noarchive" meta in the header of every page on his site. Surfers like the cache, but webmasters don't. Many webmasters have deleted questionable material from their sites, only to discover later that the problem pages live merrily on in Google's cache. The cache copy should be "opt-in" for webmasters, not "opt-out."
8. Google is not your friend:Then make a better search engine. People use it because it's really damn good at bringing up exactly what people want. Even Yahoo! doesn't compare for me. If someone makes one as good or better than google, then there's a good chance people will start to use it. The web is very fluid, sites rise and fall in the span of months.
By now Google enjoys a 75 percent monopoly for all external referrals to most websites. Webmasters cannot avoid seeking Google's approval these days, assuming they want to increase traffic to their site. If they try to take advantage of some of the known weaknesses in Google's semi-secret algorithms, they may find themselves penalized by Google, and their traffic disappears. There are no detailed, published standards issued by Google, and there is no appeal process for penalized sites. Google is completely unaccountable. Most of the time Google doesn't even answer email from webmasters.
9. Google is a privacy time bomb:We can all talk about what might happen, but until it does, it's speculation. There are companies out there who's entire job is to mine data. You can literally buy databases of personal information on people from these companies, and the government is a customer. So I wouldn't worry about Google.
With 200 million searches per day, most from outside the U.S., Google amounts to a privacy disaster waiting to happen. Those newly-commissioned data-mining bureaucrats in Washington can only dream about the sort of slick efficiency that Google has already achieved.
Any thoughts on this matter?
The problem I have with google is that they store everything. Not all that bad but it can be personal information. They have also admited to cooperate with the government in handing over all this data. Furthermore data is sold to other companies sensetive information can be leaked.Sure they store everything...it's their business. But I challenge you to show me the PR where they have officially admitted to disclosing it to government or competitors. This is definitely not in their best interests. That info is extremely valuable, and they aren't going to give it up without a huge fight. The only reason that AT&T did it was because they don't have as much value in their profiling info as Google, and the cost of fussing around with courts and maybe pissing off government wasn't worth the benefit. Nobody really has to worry about their private info becoming public with Google...their secretive profiling is worth on order of magnitudes of millions of dollars in advertising revenue, and if it becomes more public, it loses it's feed to that info. Google needs a CONSTANT inflow of data, or it's archived data is all that is valuable. In marketing old data is bad data...you need new and now data, and if Google alienates its user-base, they lose the advertising moneys. No, the peoples have much more power over Google than they think they do...but Google is a master of PR. Considering everything that they've done, almost all of the products Google releases are heralded as positive additions by consumers...who get them for free. Just think about how little protests have come from users of the product out of GoogleBooks and GoogleMail up to now.
You can handle an "eternal cookie" quite easily in Firefox.
Tools --> Clear Private Data --> check all tickboxes --> click "Clear Private Data Now"
From Safari 2.0 and greater, prior to browsing, click Safari --> Private Browsing --> OK to start and do the same process again to stop.
Or if you want to clear your cache, cookies and history in Safari, just choose the menu items that allow that.
Easily circumvented.
Yeah, I think google is great. My only gripe is they want tax info for their "AdSense" program. So, I chose not to participate, and let them know.
Exhibit A: G-mailTo be honest, I find this rarely works, even when I'm 'honest' in my surfing habits. I think in this case it's mostly because I'm an outlier for their advert programs, thus their algorithms, no matter how well designed and backed with valid data, will never be able to, if ever, peg my commercial interests.
Google's mail service allows for an enormous amount of caching space. They were basically the first to offer free accounts with over 2G of storage space. They encouraged users to cache their mail for later search. And instead of keeping the fact that ads were provided with the service, they actually promoted it. The prime driving force behind their service is their targetted ads. Google doesn't try to ferret out your identity...they just want to be able to know your buying habits, the things you talk about frequently, etc, so that they can target ads better to your IP.
Exhibit B: Failure to comply to subpoenas.Exactly, knowledge is power. It's almost like what occurred in Ancient China when it horded the knowledge of how to produce paper.
If Google had handed over the info the government, then all of their valuable information would leave their walls, possibly reaching competitors. Google's best asset is not their server farm, their indexing algorithms, not even their advertising revenue....it is the IP related profile that they build up from searches, email, etc, etc. For all worried that somebody else might get a hold of this info, your fears should be appeased. Even if somebody wanted to BUY the info, to sell it to them would mean that all of their competitors would cripple their profits.
Exhibit D: Web-related servicesI find these features wanting, then again, SOAP and AJAX suck anyways, geez. ;)
Google is doing a bit to ensure that you are always on it's website. There are word processors, planning calendars, email, chat, calculators...all offered by Google. It's becoming quite clear. Soon there will be GoogleOS. Since it's all web-related, and any processing is done on the server side, all that's needed on the client is a thin hardware layer. And it's completely compatible for any device. PDAs, desktops, laptops, cellphones; they will all be able to run the GoogleOS, and the content can even be formatted especcially for the device, again, on the server side. And if this happens, I am positive that Google will sell customizability as a features. Consumers will actually want this feature, and not many will think about privacy...those who do will have their fears abated because of Google's past prudency in keeping it secret. The subpoenas and Google resistance have proven to be good PR in the long run.
In closing, I am sure that Google is being Big Brother-ish here, but I don't think anybody should worry about the things that seem to be primary concerns. Google is not working for the government...the government is not profitable for them. They will not release this info to the government....they would sooner nuke their server rooms. But so long as advertisers can make use of targetted marketing, Google will be the leading competitor.And I'm glad too.
This sort of thing is inevitable. In free market situations, Googles will be there, evil or no, and there will be somebody else ready to offer you identity protection and privacy packages. What you have to understand is that users have opted into Google's service. They are well within their rights to do the things they do, and anybody who doesn't like it can use the inferior search capacity of another engine.
Search Engine Optimizer (SEO) Charles S. Knight has compiled a list of the top 100 alternative search engines (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/top_100_alternative_search_engines.php). The list includes Artificial Intelligence systems, Clustering engines, Recommendation Search engines, Metasearch, and many more hidden gems of search. People use four main search engines for 99.99% of their searches: Google, Yahoo!, MSN, and Ask.com (in that order). But Knight has discovered, via his work as an SEO, that in the other .01% lies a vast multitude of the most innovative and creative search engines around.
My personal opinion is that corporations are not supposed to have an explicitly altruistic social conscience, they're supposed to do what their shareholders want them to do - most likely to maximize profits. A corporation is an organizational directive, a force of nature, like fire or nuclear energy, useful but deadly if misused. And yet, most of the time that works out very well, "the consumer is always right"... until the government gets involved.
They don't need cookies to track you, they can track you by your ip address and your mac address...
They don't need cookies to track you, they can track you by your ip address and your mac address...
a mac address is not an address at all, it is an idenifier.....it should be called a MAC ID
Google has become the main advocate in Washington for a set of regulations to prevent internet service providers favouring particular companies' traffic.
However, that campaign, over what is known as "net neutrality", has handed a gift to its own detractors.
This year, "search neutrality" has become the rallying cry of activists who believe that Google has too much power to decide which internet sites are granted the attention that comes with a high search ranking, and which are consigned to outer darkness.
After regulating the "pipes" of the internet with net neutrality, says Frank Pasquale, a professor at Seton Hall law school, "we need to look at the next part of the bottleneck, and that means search".
For now, there is no indication that Washington is interested in creating a regime to govern the search business, and the campaign has served mainly as a way for Google's detractors to try to push it on to the defensive over other issues.
But antitrust regulators have already begun to look this year into how the company’s core search ranking system works. The announcement this month of the $700m acquisition of ITA Software, a travel technology company, is now set to extend that further.
Joaquín Almunia, Europe's top competition official, last week gave the first direct indication that Brussels was taking Google's search power seriously.
The European Commission began an informal review into allegations of bias in the search rankings early this year but Mr Almunia's declaration that he was looking at the issues "very carefully" was seen in antitrust circles as a sign the issue was now squarely on Brussels' agenda.
The German cartel office, meanwhile, is considering complaints brought by newspaper and magazine publishers, and regulators in Washington are being urged to scrutinise closely.
Speaking in an interview with the Financial Times this week, Barry Diller, who oversees a large collection of internet sites including travel service Expedia and search engine Ask, called on US regulators to either impose conditions on Google's purchase of ITA or block the deal outright. Extending its reach into new areas such as travel would lead to Google promoting its own services above those of sites such as Expedia, Mr Diller said.
US regulators have also been taking informal soundings among companies for some months about the extent of Google's influence on the internet, although that has not led to any official review, according to two people familiar with discussions.
The Commission case could become the thin end of the wedge in constraining Google's power, according to some antitrust experts in Brussels.
If Brussels rules Google is dominant in its market, it would put the company on notice to act with "special responsibility" - a vague requirement in European law that could force it to re-examine many of its business practices, says Thomas Vinje, a partner at Clifford Chance. Among the issues it might have to reconsider, he adds, is whether it can give preferential treatment in search results to its own services, such as those complained of by Mr Diller.
Some critics are also calling for regulators to have closer oversight of Google's core technology, to make sure no bias is at work. "We are asking it to open its algorithm to the Federal cartel office", says Echkard Bremer, the lawyer representing German publishers.
Ultimately, whether regulators decide to intervene is likely to depend on their assessment of the company's own assertion that internet users can easily go elsewhere if they do not like the search results they are being shown.
Google's dominance may be less assured than it seems. A recent test showed that Google's results are no better on average than those served up by Microsoft's Bing, says Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, who is about to take up the position of professor of internet governance and regulation at Oxford University.
"The good news is that it means Google won't get regulated," Mr Mayer-Schönberger says. "The bad news is that when consumers figure that out, they could easily move."
The habits of web users are also likely to influence the outcome. Services such as Facebook and Twitter help determine how people navigate the web. "The monopoly Google holds is less of a natural monopoly than people think", says Dave Sifry, founder of Technorati. "In a way, search is the last war."
For now, Google's algorithm reigns supreme. But it is still too early to tell if it will be a permanent fixture.
Who gives a shit.
Who gives a shit.
I do.
Why do you feel the need to post here if you don't? Just need to have a little ego boost by posturing ? So very fucking COOL!
"Ignorance combined with Complacency is a Fucking Bore"- Stoker
"The exultation of Ignorance REALLY pisses me off"- Frank Zappa
Go eat your 4 whole fried chickens and shut the fuck up if you don't have anything useful to say in a real thread about something that actually matters to some people.
Who gives a shit.
I do.
Why do you feel the need to post here if you don't? Just need to have a little ego boost by posturing ? So very fucking COOL!
"Ignorance combined with Complacency is a Fucking Bore"- Stoker
"The exultation of Ignorance REALLY pisses me off"- Frank Zappa
Go eat your 4 whole fried chickens and shut the fuck up if you don't have anything useful to say in a real thread about something that actually matters to some people.
Suck my dick.
Anyone who believes google has somehow screwed people in the public domain is a fucking moron.
You go there, you use their engine. Its not a conspiracy.
You're an idiot.
The big font makes you look extra retarded - which is almost impossible, but you somehow pull it off.
Tell me something, Stroker... do you think you're somehow entitled to anonymity from Google? Simple answer, yes or no.
Google isn't too bad.(http://images.dailytech.com/frontpage/fp__ciaseal.jpg)
Former CIA Agent Says Google and CIA in Partnership, Google started with CIA seed money
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4774 (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4774)
A good breakdown of just how "Not Bad" Google is :
(http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/usamgoo.gif)
http://www.google-watch.org/ (http://www.google-watch.org/)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1293324/Australian-inquiry-finds-Google-Street-View-cameras-broken-privacy-laws.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1293324/Australian-inquiry-finds-Google-Street-View-cameras-broken-privacy-laws.html)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1288378/Google-faces-prosecution-France-accidentally-smashing-privacy-laws-Street-View.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1288378/Google-faces-prosecution-France-accidentally-smashing-privacy-laws-Street-View.html)
Katherine Albrecht: Katherine talks about the two speeches she gave at Boston Commons on July 4th. She is at a loss as to why people let Google spy on them and retain their data for Google's commercial use. Google's founder says that they would not do this if people objected.
http://www.katherinealbrecht.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3515:tue-july-06-2010&catid=20:show-archives&Itemid=44 (http://www.katherinealbrecht.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3515:tue-july-06-2010&catid=20:show-archives&Itemid=44)
http://insidegoogle.com/category/privacy/ (http://insidegoogle.com/category/privacy/)
A guy in Germany chasing a Google spymobile down the street because it is "not bad" to spy on you in your home:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/09/street_view_pickaxe/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/09/street_view_pickaxe/)
http://techcrunch.com/2008/02/29/google-invests-in-dna-sequencing-project/ (http://techcrunch.com/2008/02/29/google-invests-in-dna-sequencing-project/)
National Coalition of Authors Urge Rejection of Google Book Search Deal
Ability to Track Readers Puts Privacy at Risk
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/09/08 (http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/09/08)
Google, Inc. (GOOG) this week announced a pilot project with at the Cleveland Clinic to store the information of up to 10,000 patients in a new online electronic health records storage service. Google is not the sole player in the online medical records storage field.
http://www.glgroup.com/News/The-Doctor-Will-Google-You-Now-22230.html (http://www.glgroup.com/News/The-Doctor-Will-Google-You-Now-22230.html)
(http://notes2self.net/mob_img/Independent-070524-Google.jpg)
http://notes2self.net/archive/2007/05/24/independent-google-is-watching-you-big-brother-row-over-plans-for-personal-database.aspx (http://notes2self.net/archive/2007/05/24/independent-google-is-watching-you-big-brother-row-over-plans-for-personal-database.aspx)
Google keeps ALL of the searches you have ever made. Every porn site, every hydroponic site, every Gun site,every anti-government site EVERYTHING. Every fucking Click.Think about it. They know more about your average online Joe than he knows about himself. They now publicly brag about having amassed the largest database of personal information on individuals EVER gathered. I am sure they would NEVER abuse THAT! Who has ever heard of personal information being used to persecute people???
I switched to startpage a while back. They at least claim to not track you, this may or may not be true but Google makes no bones about keeping every bit of information they can gather about you.
http://us2.startpage.com/eng/ (http://us2.startpage.com/eng/)
The big font makes you look extra retarded - which is almost impossible, but you somehow pull it off.
Tell me something, Stroker... do you think you're somehow entitled to anonymity from Google? Simple answer, yes or no.
Right there at the bottom is where I stated that I don't use Google. Perhaps if you would bother to read peoples posts you wouldn't look like such a twerp for nitpicking about complete bullshit because you think it makes you look cool.
You have already stated that you "don't give a shit" (apparently about anything) and that is just fine with me.
Heres the run-down, in case you lost track during the splattering queef of your last few hours...
Alex necro'd a dead thread...
If it was fine with you, you wouldn't have flipped into a big hissyfit
Wow, this thread has really gone downhill fast. |
I do think it's pretty hilarious that people are now trying to advocate "search engine neutrality". Karma's a bitch. |
[...] Alex necro'd a dead thread, which he's prone to do, with a legitimate update on a subject - in this case Google's market-share dictating page-rankings. [...] |
... and Alex is also blacklisted because he used to talk about sex with children which is easily explained by his clear history of talking about nothing but one controversial subject with great enthusiasm for a short time and then entirely dropping it but that doesn't matter cuz it's for the childrenz.
QuoteHeres the run-down, in case you lost track during the splattering queef of your last few hours...
Alex necro'd a dead thread...
... and Alex is also blacklisted because he used to talk about sex with children which is easily explained by his clear history of talking about nothing but one controversial subject with great enthusiasm for a short time and then entirely dropping it but that doesn't matter cuz it's for the childrenz.
That's why Brasky (Drifter) shit on your conversation.
QuoteHeres the run-down, in case you lost track during the splattering queef of your last few hours...
Alex necro'd a dead thread...
... and Alex is also blacklisted because he used to talk about sex with children which is easily explained by his clear history of talking about nothing but one controversial subject with great enthusiasm for a short time and then entirely dropping it but that doesn't matter cuz it's for the childrenz.
That's why Brasky (Drifter) shit on your conversation.
No, Brasky shit on Strokers conversation because, as previously explained, he's a CT retard.
Our previous disagreements aside, Royce, you may be missing a piece of continuity here. Alex posted, then Stroker posted a massive CT thing (which is the big one he inserted later with the Google newspaper graphic). Then I simply said I don't give a shit. That was the original continuity.
Then he (stroker) removed his big giant CT post to make me look like I responded to Alex. I did not respond to Alex.
These things get convoluted, and if I really felt like proving the continuity of the thread, I could simply bump Strokers original post out of the trash (he put it there). They're all timestamped.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Alex.
I never got the impression you had replied to Alex.
So, if you don't give a shit. Why say it? What's the purpose of coming in this thread where this guy is all excited to talk about something he loves to talk about and tell him how little you care, see how he might think that's odd and even blatantly unfriendly behavior?
Yeah, but two wrongs don't make a right, especially since Google's loss is government's gain, which in turn is a loss for our liberty. This is how they're going to bring down free Internet - under the banner of "freedom", that is the communist hijacking of the concept to mean "unreliable promises of free beer through limitless government power". First it's "net neutrality", then "search neutrality", then "social networking neutrality", then "software neutrality" (i.e. GPL), then blogger licensing, etc, etc, etc - all the way to Big Brother and Pravda.
A tweet from the EFF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation) pointed me to a short article detailing part of Eric Schmidt's speech to the Techonomy conference (http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/8/5/no-anonymity-future-web-says-google-ceo/) in Lake Tahoe on August 4. According to Schmidt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_E._Schmidt#President_Barack_Obama), true transparency and anonymity on the Internet will become a thing of the past because of the need to combat criminal and "anti-social" behavior.
"Governments will demand it", he says, referring to full accountability and a "name service for people", possibly hinting towards mandatory Internet passports. The CEO of Google also made a couple of somewhat creepy references to the availability of information: "If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go ... show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!"
I think this is relevant: I just picked up a book today, "The Anarchist in the Library" by Siva Vaidhyanathan. "how the clash between freedom and control is hacking the real world and crashing the system." Scanning it over, they use the words anarchy and oligarchy a lot.
I think this is relevant: I just picked up a book today, "The Anarchist in the Library" by Siva Vaidhyanathan. "how the clash between freedom and control is hacking the real world and crashing the system." Scanning it over, they use the words anarchy and oligarchy a lot.
Hmm...looks like it's only in hard cover.
That's why I call myself a capitalist, not an anarchist. Or an Anarcho-Capitalist at most (a chickpea is not a chicken).
In other news, Alex Jones has a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB9SEUY4jgg) [BT] (http://tracker.concen.org/torrents-details.php?id=19187) and articles (http://www.prisonplanet.com/google-plans-to-kill-web-in-internet-takeover-agenda.html) bashing Google's proposed "net neutrality lite"... Of course he gets it 100% wrong and calls for a government-regulated Internet... Retard! :x
Google might suck, but I tried Starpage.com's challenge and couldn't find what I wanted without going through a couple of pages of search results
When ixquick (parent company of startpage) make a kickass linux-based mobile OS, awesome web-based email, full-featured calendar, and adequate RSS reader I'll switch to them. Until then, I'll stay with Google. They are kinda sucking at the "Don't be evil" thing lately though.
[...] linux-based [...] |