Tim Daneluk

[mac davis]

that clears it up.. no internet access is better than censored access, right?

Mac

[J T]

Mon, Jan 30, 2006, 8:58pm (EST-3) [e-mail] (Larry=A0Blanchard) giggles and tells us: I've got too much time on my hands :-).

You don't know how to spend it either.

As long as you've got so much time to waste, go count all the plans posts I've made, make a site with all the links, each with a title, then e-mail the site link to everyone here. Except me. Then you can killfile me. I would have said you could "plonk" me, but I was afraid you might have mis-understood what I meant.

Gods above, if that's all you have to occupy your time, I'm so very glad I don't have your life. That'd be at least as bad as being banished to the Pluperfect Purple Hell.

JOAT Shhh... that's the sound of nobody caring what you think.

[Java Man]

I didn't say what I thought Google's competitive advantage is, but I if think those are the only possibilities, you've oversimplified the situation so badly that you might even recommend boycotting them for . . . oh, wait -- you already have.

Are you implying you're unaware that many companies have trade secrets and similar proprietary knowledge -- companies like, perhaps Google?

Then what did you mean by the following?

-------------------------- "Where did I suggest that Google's ONLY advantage was anything? That's bullpuckey."

-------------------------

Here:

---------------------- "So your point is... That they have an advantage because of their head start?"

----------------------

That wasn't my point, and isn't now. It was yours.

I do, and I also understand the use of rhetorical questions.

So, let's recap again. You say:

- Google isn't doing anything proprietary in its web and usenet aggregating

- All that Google has on me (or you) is a head start

If you don't know Google's trade secrets, how can you expect to have any credibility asserting that "All Google has that you don't is a head start, a supoena to appear before the US Congress, and $19 billion less share value than they had a couple of days ago."?

Ah, the famous Peewee Herman defense -- "I know you are, but what am I?"

Rick

[Enoch Root]

The silly thing about this whole conversation to anyone that knows even a little about Google's advantage (no it's not that they were first, there were many others before them) is their ranking algorithms for the links returned by the searches.

Their page-rank patent (patents?) are valued by Google's users in that they seem to return the most relevant results and (with some glitches along the way) have been very resistant to spamming the rankings that was constantly happening with all the other search engines.

Their "do no evil" mantra, which as of the announced cooperation with China is no longer more than marketing hoohaw, was, I think, originally directed at fears Google would alter their algorithms to favor their ad clients. They managed to keep that stuff in the margins... as far as we know. :)

er

[Doug Miller]

Interestingly enough, a search using the terms "Tom Watson" and "Asshole" turns up even *more* hits (25 vs. 17, to be exact).

[Doug Miller]

What, it took you this long to recognize the gasbag pretentiousness that has become his trademark? You're slipping, Tim. I spotted him right off. :-)

[Dave Balderstone]

You're not suggesting that without Google there would be no internet access in China, are you?

[Joe Barta]

I'm guessing he misspoke. That aside, I have a few questions for you...

Let's suppose we toss aside the profit motive. Let's pretend that Google is a genuinely benevolent entity that is entirely removed from the pesky necessities of raising money or paying bills.

Would you agree that FOR NOW, an agreement to provide censored search results to the good people of China is better than no agreement at all?

Would you also agree, that as is often the case with change, change comes slowly? And it's reasonable to assume that as time progresses, the level of government censorship in China will likely decrease?

Would you also agree that it's also reasonable to assume that quite a bit of content intended to be censored will probably make it through to the Chinese people anyway?

Keeping all this in mind, profit motive aside, would you now agree that this unpleasant compromise is at least a good step in the right direction?

Joe Barta

[mac davis]

no, my bad.. Maybe I should have said no search engine is better than a restricted search engine?

Censorship is only as good as the people trying to implement it...

you have to know WHAT to block and block all possibilities... a daunting task...

Several tries in the states have failed because of the different meaning of different words... such as breast.. that would have been blocked by most censorship tries and as the argument goes, women would not be able to get information on breast cancer..

I'm sue that there are many creative folks in China that will take advantage of having Google to get around the censorship..

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

[Dave Balderstone]

While we're at it, let's pretend that the moon really is made of green cheese, Elvis is alive, and everyone owns flying cars.

[Joe Barta]

You miss the point... the point is to isolate issues of contention. If you can't do that, then what's the use of further discussion? We each throw up our hands and walk away thinking the other is just another dumb clod.

Joe Barta

[Dave Balderstone]

But you want to discuss issues in a context that has no basis in reality.

To remove the profit motive from the discussion means we're talking fiction.

Google's actions, like those of Yahoo and Microsoft (and Cisco, if memory serves) are solidly based in profit. If there was no profit to be made, Google would have told the Chinese "Look, we're against censorship and refuse to censor our service. If you choose to firewall your country and block your citizens from accessing Google, go ahead, but we refuse to play along."

That's what "Don't be evil" means. That's what people who aren't evil do.

Instead, Google said "Well, we don't really like the idea, but if you're prepared to pay us and allow us access to your market in the future, we can be a *little bit* evil."

[Joe Barta]

Quite honestly, I can't see why you're having such a hard time doing this. It's a simple thought excercise.

Imagine a nonprofit entity... they get their money from whoknowswhere.

Can you see any benefit coming out of the nonprofit providing search results for the Chinese people even though at this time some results will be censored with a notation stating such on the search results page?

(IIRC, the search results, if censored, will indeed have a notice on them. Unfortunately I'm not 100% certain of this and am too lazy to check at the moment ;-)

Joe Barta

[Dave Balderstone]

Why do a "thought exercise" that isn't based on reality when we have the actual scenario staring us in the face?

Quite honestly, I can't see why you insist on moving the discussion from reality to some imaginary scenario that has not, does not and will not exist.

Profit is the key reason why Google and others are cooperating with the Chinese Communist Party. Discussing their actions outside of the context of profit is, as far as I'm concerned, a waste of time.

djb

[Joe Barta]

As far as you're concerned it's a waste of time... fair enough.

Joe Barta

[Java Man]

It's tough to get there when some won't acknowledge that Google has proprietary trade secrets which they want and need to protect.

Rick

[Dave Balderstone]

Who's done that?

[Java Man]

Who do you think?

Rick

[Dave Balderstone]

Cite, please? I've neither said nor hinted I believe that.

[Oleg Lego]

The Dave Balderstone entity posted thusly:

According to the posting, he said that you said "Who's done that?"

Just follow the 'greater than' levels to see who said what. It shows...

rick said : "It's tough to get there... You said: "Who's done that?" rick said: "Who do you think?" You said: "Cite please.... I said the rest...