Will google finally be the one?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

To overturn the megabuggy world of Microsoft attached to the 'Net?

Link lifed from slashdot:

http://www.nypost.com/business/30438.htm

<quote>

The broader concept Google is pursuing is similar to the "network
computer" envisioned by Oracle chief Larry Ellison during a speech in 1995.

The idea is that companies or consumers could buy a machine that costs
only about $200, or less, but that has very little hard drive space and
almost no software. Instead, users would access a network through a
browser and access all their programs and data there.

The concept floundered, but programmers note that Google could easily
pick up the ball. Already, its Gmail free e-mail system gives users 100
megabytes of storage space on a remote network — providing consumers a
virtual hard drive.

"I think a similar thing [to the got network computer] is developing in
a more organic way now," said Jason Kottke, a New York-based Web
developer who follows Google's moves. "People are ready for it. Instead
of most of your interaction happening with Windows or Mac, you're
spending a lot of time with Google-built interfaces."

</quote>

In a quick perusal of the slashdot posts, I didn't see anyone picking up
on what I take to be the main point: this is trouble not only for
Microsoft, but for the platform, as well. Not my original notion by a
long shot, nor the first time I've talked about it, but if your
environment is not on your PC but one some far away server, there is
very little left for your PC to do and very little reason to spend much
money on it.

The idea has huge implications for security and privacy, not all of them
bad, and the net effect on the business, both hardware and software,
could be positive, as well. If someone is going to take over the
future, I'm much happier that it should be the principals of google and
not Gates and Ballmer We Are the World, Inc.

RM
15 answers Last reply
More about will google finally
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:6f%3d.132610$3l3.89330@attbi_s03...
    > http://www.nypost.com/business/30438.htm
    >
    > <quote>
    >
    > The broader concept Google is pursuing is similar to the "network
    > computer" envisioned by Oracle chief Larry Ellison during a speech
    in 1995.
    >
    > The idea is that companies or consumers could buy a machine that
    costs
    > only about $200, or less, but that has very little hard drive space
    and
    > almost no software. Instead, users would access a network through a
    > browser and access all their programs and data there.


    Del Checci wrote in comp.arch in Aug 2003:

    > > You are describing the "Thin Client" which at least a couple of
    large
    > >companies tried to promote a few years ago, with not much success.
    > > So, "What's different now"?


    To which I added (in comp.arch), on Aug 10 2003:

    There is an old Hollywood saying: "The box office never lies". I
    suggest that the box office has spoken loudly WRT the thin client.
    ;-)

    I have no reason to add to the above at this time. ;-)
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Felger Carbon wrote:
    > "Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:6f%3d.132610$3l3.89330@attbi_s03...
    >
    >>http://www.nypost.com/business/30438.htm
    >>
    >><quote>
    >>
    >>The broader concept Google is pursuing is similar to the "network
    >>computer" envisioned by Oracle chief Larry Ellison during a speech
    >
    > in 1995.
    >
    >>The idea is that companies or consumers could buy a machine that
    >
    > costs
    >
    >>only about $200, or less, but that has very little hard drive space
    >
    > and
    >
    >>almost no software. Instead, users would access a network through a
    >>browser and access all their programs and data there.
    >
    >
    >
    > Del Checci wrote in comp.arch in Aug 2003:
    >
    >
    >>>You are describing the "Thin Client" which at least a couple of
    >
    > large
    >
    >> >companies tried to promote a few years ago, with not much success.
    >>
    >>>So, "What's different now"?
    >
    >
    >
    > To which I added (in comp.arch), on Aug 10 2003:
    >
    > There is an old Hollywood saying: "The box office never lies". I
    > suggest that the box office has spoken loudly WRT the thin client.
    > ;-)
    >
    > I have no reason to add to the above at this time. ;-)
    >
    >

    You notice that when I think something is a good idea, I don't give up
    on it easily. :-). That's a positive attribute, I think. :-). Not to
    be confused with stubbornness. :-).

    IBM is apparently kind of stubborn, too (Workplace 2.0, announced after
    that online exchange. I sent an e-mail to Del in case he missed the
    internal announcement.)

    http://www.globalsources.com/am/article_id/9000000054755/page/showarticle?action=GetArticle

    http://www-306.ibm.com/software/swnews/swnews.nsf/n/jmae5yapen?OpenDocument&Site=lotus

    As the slightly snippy exchange on comp.arch re: Xerox PARC is a
    reminder, a really good idea by itself doesn't turn into instant
    revenue, the first to think of a really good idea isn't necessarily the
    one to turn it to a profit, and, if a really good idea really is a
    really good idea, it doesn't matter much if it doesn't work out immediately.

    Google is not the first to have seen rich possibilities in search, but
    it is the first really to have turned mere possibility into big revenue.
    Nor is google the first to perceive what a threat to Microsoft a web
    portal might be. This is all happening _after_ Gates ran Netscape off
    into a ditch.

    Microsoft has some baggage it didn't have then, like a really, really
    bad security reputation for IE, repeated disappointment with online
    ventures, and a finding that it has engaged in illegal monopolistic
    practices.

    Google doesn't seem to have any of the negative baggage of AOL,
    Microsoft, or Oracle. They are already in possession of a database that
    seems like it could be seriously misused for great profit (wouldn't you
    like to know what's _really_ on the mind of some of America's most
    affluent and sophisticated consumers? What they google for doesn't
    really answer that question, but it's a helluva start). People
    apparently trust them. Good Q score.

    So, the "what's different now" is: different security environment in
    which mistrust of Windows software has extended even into Microsoft,
    widespread mistrust of Microsoft as a player and partner, and the
    appearance of a smart, trusted, well-known, and apparently well-liked
    player with a wad of cash and probably the ability to raise more.

    There are rich possibilities for google to screw up on security. If
    they manage not to, though (and, no matter how smart they are, that's a
    big if), google could wind up getting a percentage on a big slice of all
    the action, sort of the way Microsoft is now.

    RM
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:25:54 GMT, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >To overturn the megabuggy world of Microsoft attached to the 'Net?
    >
    >Link lifed from slashdot:
    >
    >http://www.nypost.com/business/30438.htm
    >
    ><quote>
    >
    >The broader concept Google is pursuing is similar to the "network
    >computer" envisioned by Oracle chief Larry Ellison during a speech in 1995.
    >
    >The idea is that companies or consumers could buy a machine that costs
    >only about $200, or less, but that has very little hard drive space and
    >almost no software. Instead, users would access a network through a
    >browser and access all their programs and data there.
    >
    >The concept floundered, but programmers note that Google could easily
    >pick up the ball. Already, its Gmail free e-mail system gives users 100
    >megabytes of storage space on a remote network — providing consumers a
    >virtual hard drive.
    >
    >"I think a similar thing [to the got network computer] is developing in
    >a more organic way now," said Jason Kottke, a New York-based Web
    >developer who follows Google's moves. "People are ready for it. Instead
    >of most of your interaction happening with Windows or Mac, you're
    >spending a lot of time with Google-built interfaces."
    >
    ></quote>

    Well I have to say I recall christening Larry's "thin" vision SQL*Nuts back
    in 1995.. hmm was it really that long ago?

    I wasn't aware that there were many "people" "spending a lot of time with
    Google-built interfaces". Who are they and what the hell are they doing?
    Sounds like "analyst-speak" to me - it's pump time for Google's stock.:-(

    >In a quick perusal of the slashdot posts, I didn't see anyone picking up
    >on what I take to be the main point: this is trouble not only for
    >Microsoft, but for the platform, as well. Not my original notion by a
    >long shot, nor the first time I've talked about it, but if your
    >environment is not on your PC but one some far away server, there is
    >very little left for your PC to do and very little reason to spend much
    >money on it.
    >
    >The idea has huge implications for security and privacy, not all of them
    >bad, and the net effect on the business, both hardware and software,
    >could be positive, as well. If someone is going to take over the
    >future, I'm much happier that it should be the principals of google and
    >not Gates and Ballmer We Are the World, Inc.

    I still think it's Nuts. People own cars because they detest having to put
    up with all the inconvenience of common transport systems, be it buses,
    trains or more recently 'planes - gawd do I hate airports now! IMO the
    same reasoning lies behind the success of the PC, to a large extent.

    Sounds to me like Google is about to do a Netscape. As for their browser
    ideas, I use Mozilla because it liberates me from creeps who want to err,
    guide me in my WWW-travels. Just lately I've been finding Google mildly
    annoying with their up-front directed search hits where I have to wade
    through 2/3 pages of "commercials" to get to the "results". Heavens knows
    what they'd get up to with their own "special" browser.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 02:31:32 -0400, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    >I wasn't aware that there were many "people" "spending a lot of time with
    >Google-built interfaces". Who are they and what the hell are they doing?
    >Sounds like "analyst-speak" to me - it's pump time for Google's stock.:-(

    <snipped>

    >I still think it's Nuts. People own cars because they detest having to put
    >up with all the inconvenience of common transport systems, be it buses,
    >trains or more recently 'planes - gawd do I hate airports now! IMO the
    >same reasoning lies behind the success of the PC, to a large extent.

    I'd agree with you totally on this. I have a gmail account but I
    probably used it less times than I have fingers. I've always prefered
    to download MY stuff onto MY computer where I don't need an internet
    connection to find MY stuff or worry about somebody else pawing
    through MY stuff because somebody screwed up their server security.
    It's not mine unless I can destroy it as and when I like.

    I'm rather skeptical about what Google or any big corp might do with
    my mails in their database. After all, what's to stop a google
    employee from running a search then coming around to black mail
    somebody because he found a nude pic they sent to their boyfriend or
    something?

    After all, I read all these security reports on the web that always
    emphasize most breaches are from the inside.

    --
    L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
    If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
    Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
    If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
    But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    George Macdonald wrote:

    > On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:25:54 GMT, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>To overturn the megabuggy world of Microsoft attached to the 'Net?
    >>
    >>Link lifed from slashdot:
    >>
    >>http://www.nypost.com/business/30438.htm
    >>
    >><quote>
    >>
    >>The broader concept Google is pursuing is similar to the "network
    >>computer" envisioned by Oracle chief Larry Ellison during a speech in 1995.
    >>

    <snip>

    >>
    >></quote>
    >
    >
    > Well I have to say I recall christening Larry's "thin" vision SQL*Nuts back
    > in 1995.. hmm was it really that long ago?
    >

    And what you experienced was so bad as to be beyond repair?

    > I wasn't aware that there were many "people" "spending a lot of time with
    > Google-built interfaces". Who are they and what the hell are they doing?
    > Sounds like "analyst-speak" to me - it's pump time for Google's stock.:-(
    >

    I haven't had time to read the post-mortems, but what I've scanned has
    left me with the impression that google hasn't ingratiated itself with
    Wall Street by its do-it-yourself approach to a public offering (what a
    surprise). I'll admit, the iconoclastic style appeals to me; I'm
    inclined to think these guys must be all right if they've annoyed
    investment bankers. In any case, I think your paranoia engine is
    working overtime.

    >
    >>In a quick perusal of the slashdot posts, I didn't see anyone picking up
    >>on what I take to be the main point: this is trouble not only for
    >>Microsoft, but for the platform, as well. Not my original notion by a
    >>long shot, nor the first time I've talked about it, but if your
    >>environment is not on your PC but one some far away server, there is
    >>very little left for your PC to do and very little reason to spend much
    >>money on it.
    >>
    >>The idea has huge implications for security and privacy, not all of them
    >>bad, and the net effect on the business, both hardware and software,
    >>could be positive, as well. If someone is going to take over the
    >>future, I'm much happier that it should be the principals of google and
    >>not Gates and Ballmer We Are the World, Inc.
    >
    >
    > I still think it's Nuts. People own cars because they detest having to put
    > up with all the inconvenience of common transport systems, be it buses,
    > trains or more recently 'planes - gawd do I hate airports now! IMO the
    > same reasoning lies behind the success of the PC, to a large extent.
    >

    But suppose someone would pop round and take you where you needed to go
    when you needed to go there?

    Service Pack 2 installed already, right? User-controlled security
    features (firewall, anti-virus, auto-update) all disabled, I hope,
    because they're useless or worse (use a better firewall than
    Microsoft's, they don't supply anti-virus, anyway, and, if the release
    history with Service Pack 2 didn't convince you you shouldn't let
    Microsoft auto anything, I don't know what would).

    By any reasonable estimate, the world should have dumped Windows long
    ago, but it hasn't, because it is still less inconvenient than
    alternatives. Give people an option that does what they need it to do
    and that is more convenient and see what happens.

    > Sounds to me like Google is about to do a Netscape. As for their browser
    > ideas, I use Mozilla because it liberates me from creeps who want to err,
    > guide me in my WWW-travels. Just lately I've been finding Google mildly
    > annoying with their up-front directed search hits where I have to wade
    > through 2/3 pages of "commercials" to get to the "results". Heavens knows
    > what they'd get up to with their own "special" browser.
    >

    If you were typical, google would have somebody whose only interest in
    life is figuring out what consumers really want telling them how to fix
    it. I'm sometimes stunned at how accurately targeted not just the ads
    on the search page are, but even more so the google ads on the linked
    pages.

    As to being guided, you don't think alot of manipulation is going into
    search-engine rankings already? How often do _you_ get past the second
    search page? As slick as google is, and I do think they are slick, the
    web is a _long_ way from being as useful as it could be to most people,
    and most people do know how to use google, even if not with particularly
    great skill.

    The bottom line is that access to an information-rich resource like the
    net will be guided (and manipulated). The only question is by whom and
    to whose benefit.

    RM
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    The little lost angel wrote:

    > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 02:31:32 -0400, George Macdonald
    > <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I wasn't aware that there were many "people" "spending a lot of time with
    >>Google-built interfaces". Who are they and what the hell are they doing?
    >>Sounds like "analyst-speak" to me - it's pump time for Google's stock.:-(
    >
    >
    > <snipped>
    >
    >>I still think it's Nuts. People own cars because they detest having to put
    >>up with all the inconvenience of common transport systems, be it buses,
    >>trains or more recently 'planes - gawd do I hate airports now! IMO the
    >>same reasoning lies behind the success of the PC, to a large extent.
    >
    >
    > I'd agree with you totally on this. I have a gmail account but I
    > probably used it less times than I have fingers. I've always prefered
    > to download MY stuff onto MY computer where I don't need an internet
    > connection to find MY stuff or worry about somebody else pawing
    > through MY stuff because somebody screwed up their server security.
    > It's not mine unless I can destroy it as and when I like.
    >
    > I'm rather skeptical about what Google or any big corp might do with
    > my mails in their database. After all, what's to stop a google
    > employee from running a search then coming around to black mail
    > somebody because he found a nude pic they sent to their boyfriend or
    > something?
    >
    > After all, I read all these security reports on the web that always
    > emphasize most breaches are from the inside.
    >

    You're onto the right issues. One big breach seems like it would scotch
    the whole thing, but, hey, AOL's entire customer list was compromised
    and *they're* still in business.

    As to your destroying things, your ISP may still have a record, and
    someone else may be successful in subpoenaing it. You want privacy, go
    to a public library, use the xerox machine, and glance over your
    shoulder periodically to make sure you're not being followed. ;-).

    I don't want to make light of your concerns. They are _very_ serious
    from many differnt points of view: business, personal liberty, personal
    and public safety--but these issues are inherent, not just in the
    internet, but in computerized databases. I don't see that having a
    central focus for casual web use makes things significantly worse than
    they are already, and I think it could make things significantly better.

    The tools aren't yet in place to do it safely, but a site like google
    could establish a trusted relationship with your computer that vastly
    exceeds what is possible with current hardware. You could do all your
    business inside a trusted partition whose integrity can be verified by
    someone who knows what they're doing (almost never the end user) and
    using an encrypted link. I _like_ that idea, even though it relies on
    technology like the despised Trusted Computing Platform Initiative.
    Everybody thinks Microsoft is behind that to prevent Windows piracy, and
    that may be one explanation, but if that's as far as MegaScam has
    thought it through,... well, in fact, I think they probably are that
    dense, or at least that much in denial (just like George, Felger, and
    Del, experienced and worldly players all, are in denial about how long
    the PC is going to last ;-) ).

    In the end, you have to trust somebody and something. I'd rather trust
    a player like google, virtualization hardware, and onboard security
    hardware than the unbelievable mess we've got right now, and I do think
    relief is on the way.

    RM
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    The little lost angel <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote:
    > I'm rather skeptical about what Google or any big corp might
    > do with my mails in their database. After all, what's to
    > stop a google employee from running a search then coming
    > around to black mail somebody because he found a nude pic
    > they sent to their boyfriend or something?

    Corporate policies and the threat of being fired might
    stop them. Also, Google.com isn't a small outfit, and will
    have compartimentalization. Not all employees will be able
    to see everything. Very few will have access to the databases.

    Besides, there's _so_ much stuff, how could anyone go through
    it? Who has motive? Paranoia is just a form of egotism.

    > After all, I read all these security reports on the web
    > that always emphasize most breaches are from the inside.

    True enough. Personally, I'm worried about longevity.
    Corps come and go. There's a remote chance that one might
    try to hold user data hostage by radically changing policy.

    -- Robert
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:

    > Google doesn't seem to have any of the negative baggage of AOL,
    > Microsoft, or Oracle. They are already in possession of a database that
    > seems like it could be seriously misused for great profit (wouldn't you
    > like to know what's _really_ on the mind of some of America's most
    > affluent and sophisticated consumers? What they google for doesn't
    > really answer that question, but it's a helluva start). People
    > apparently trust them. Good Q score.

    Qarma? :-)

    --
    Regards, Grumble
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:41:11 GMT, a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com
    (The little lost angel) wrote:

    >On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 02:31:32 -0400, George Macdonald
    ><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >
    >>I wasn't aware that there were many "people" "spending a lot of time with
    >>Google-built interfaces". Who are they and what the hell are they doing?
    >>Sounds like "analyst-speak" to me - it's pump time for Google's stock.:-(
    >
    ><snipped>
    >
    >>I still think it's Nuts. People own cars because they detest having to put
    >>up with all the inconvenience of common transport systems, be it buses,
    >>trains or more recently 'planes - gawd do I hate airports now! IMO the
    >>same reasoning lies behind the success of the PC, to a large extent.
    >
    >I'd agree with you totally on this. I have a gmail account but I
    >probably used it less times than I have fingers. I've always prefered
    >to download MY stuff onto MY computer where I don't need an internet
    >connection to find MY stuff or worry about somebody else pawing
    >through MY stuff because somebody screwed up their server security.
    >It's not mine unless I can destroy it as and when I like.
    >
    >I'm rather skeptical about what Google or any big corp might do with
    >my mails in their database. After all, what's to stop a google
    >employee from running a search then coming around to black mail
    >somebody because he found a nude pic they sent to their boyfriend or
    >something?
    >
    >After all, I read all these security reports on the web that always
    >emphasize most breaches are from the inside.

    Yep and I had recent experience which illustrates just what you outlined:
    I signed up with PayPal because it was the only way to pay for an item I
    wanted. Within a few days I got an e-mail asking me to go to their Web
    site to confirm my "account status" - looked genuine, the logos, layout
    etc. were all PayPal URLs... except for the Submit button which was some
    Ph***in' Phishing creep. I have to think this was linked to some PayPal
    employee/insider. It's that easy to get caught and I have to think that
    many people would in that situation.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:48:47 GMT, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >George Macdonald wrote:

    >> Well I have to say I recall christening Larry's "thin" vision SQL*Nuts back
    >> in 1995.. hmm was it really that long ago?
    >>
    >
    >And what you experienced was so bad as to be beyond repair?

    Experience? No it was obvious that this was not a device the world was
    clamoring for. It was basically a daft idea.:-)

    >> I wasn't aware that there were many "people" "spending a lot of time with
    >> Google-built interfaces". Who are they and what the hell are they doing?
    >> Sounds like "analyst-speak" to me - it's pump time for Google's stock.:-(
    >>
    >
    >I haven't had time to read the post-mortems, but what I've scanned has
    >left me with the impression that google hasn't ingratiated itself with
    >Wall Street by its do-it-yourself approach to a public offering (what a
    >surprise). I'll admit, the iconoclastic style appeals to me; I'm
    >inclined to think these guys must be all right if they've annoyed
    >investment bankers. In any case, I think your paranoia engine is
    >working overtime.

    No my thought was: "where's the beef?" If you know hoards of people
    "spending a lot of time Google-built interfaces" it might change my
    opinion. I'm not aware that anybody is.

    >>>In a quick perusal of the slashdot posts, I didn't see anyone picking up
    >>>on what I take to be the main point: this is trouble not only for
    >>>Microsoft, but for the platform, as well. Not my original notion by a
    >>>long shot, nor the first time I've talked about it, but if your
    >>>environment is not on your PC but one some far away server, there is
    >>>very little left for your PC to do and very little reason to spend much
    >>>money on it.
    >>>
    >>>The idea has huge implications for security and privacy, not all of them
    >>>bad, and the net effect on the business, both hardware and software,
    >>>could be positive, as well. If someone is going to take over the
    >>>future, I'm much happier that it should be the principals of google and
    >>>not Gates and Ballmer We Are the World, Inc.
    >>
    >>
    >> I still think it's Nuts. People own cars because they detest having to put
    >> up with all the inconvenience of common transport systems, be it buses,
    >> trains or more recently 'planes - gawd do I hate airports now! IMO the
    >> same reasoning lies behind the success of the PC, to a large extent.
    >>
    >
    >But suppose someone would pop round and take you where you needed to go
    >when you needed to go there?

    Even if you could solve the convenience problem, which I seriously doubt,
    people like to feel in full control of when and where they go anywhere.

    >Service Pack 2 installed already, right? User-controlled security
    >features (firewall, anti-virus, auto-update) all disabled, I hope,
    >because they're useless or worse (use a better firewall than
    >Microsoft's, they don't supply anti-virus, anyway, and, if the release
    >history with Service Pack 2 didn't convince you you shouldn't let
    >Microsoft auto anything, I don't know what would).
    >
    >By any reasonable estimate, the world should have dumped Windows long
    >ago, but it hasn't, because it is still less inconvenient than
    >alternatives. Give people an option that does what they need it to do
    >and that is more convenient and see what happens.

    AFAIK Google is a long way from replacing any OS. I guess we'll see but I
    have trouble seeing where they want to take us.

    >> Sounds to me like Google is about to do a Netscape. As for their browser
    >> ideas, I use Mozilla because it liberates me from creeps who want to err,
    >> guide me in my WWW-travels. Just lately I've been finding Google mildly
    >> annoying with their up-front directed search hits where I have to wade
    >> through 2/3 pages of "commercials" to get to the "results". Heavens knows
    >> what they'd get up to with their own "special" browser.
    >>
    >
    >If you were typical, google would have somebody whose only interest in
    >life is figuring out what consumers really want telling them how to fix
    >it. I'm sometimes stunned at how accurately targeted not just the ads
    >on the search page are, but even more so the google ads on the linked
    >pages.
    >
    >As to being guided, you don't think alot of manipulation is going into
    >search-engine rankings already? How often do _you_ get past the second
    >search page? As slick as google is, and I do think they are slick, the
    >web is a _long_ way from being as useful as it could be to most people,
    >and most people do know how to use google, even if not with particularly
    >great skill.

    The point is, IMO it's getting worse - I quite often find myself on the 4th
    or 5th page without a satisfactory "result" now, on technical queries
    especially. Maybe I need to improve my "skills".:-)

    >The bottom line is that access to an information-rich resource like the
    >net will be guided (and manipulated). The only question is by whom and
    >to whose benefit.

    Obviously there's a balance. If Google has a better widget I do not see
    how it's achieved by replacing my hard disk with new infrastructure - HDDs
    are cheap... and big:-); added infrastructure usually reduces
    dependability.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    > button which was some Ph***in' Phishing creep. I have
    > to think this was linked to some PayPal employee/insider.

    If it was a targetted email (and not just a general trawl),
    the breech may have also happened at your vendor or ISP.

    > It's that easy to get caught and I have to think that many
    > people would in that situation.

    Yes, it is, hence the popularity of "social engineering",
    now known as phishing.

    -- Robert
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:29:45 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

    > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:41:11 GMT, a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com
    > (The little lost angel) wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 02:31:32 -0400, George Macdonald
    >><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I wasn't aware that there were many "people" "spending a lot of time with
    >>>Google-built interfaces". Who are they and what the hell are they doing?
    >>>Sounds like "analyst-speak" to me - it's pump time for Google's stock.:-(
    >>
    >><snipped>
    >>
    >>>I still think it's Nuts. People own cars because they detest having to put
    >>>up with all the inconvenience of common transport systems, be it buses,
    >>>trains or more recently 'planes - gawd do I hate airports now! IMO the
    >>>same reasoning lies behind the success of the PC, to a large extent.
    >>
    >>I'd agree with you totally on this. I have a gmail account but I
    >>probably used it less times than I have fingers. I've always prefered
    >>to download MY stuff onto MY computer where I don't need an internet
    >>connection to find MY stuff or worry about somebody else pawing
    >>through MY stuff because somebody screwed up their server security.
    >>It's not mine unless I can destroy it as and when I like.
    >>
    >>I'm rather skeptical about what Google or any big corp might do with
    >>my mails in their database. After all, what's to stop a google
    >>employee from running a search then coming around to black mail
    >>somebody because he found a nude pic they sent to their boyfriend or
    >>something?
    >>
    >>After all, I read all these security reports on the web that always
    >>emphasize most breaches are from the inside.
    >
    > Yep and I had recent experience which illustrates just what you outlined:
    > I signed up with PayPal because it was the only way to pay for an item I
    > wanted.

    I refuse to use PayPal, largely becay=use of such breaches. If the vendor
    doesn't take my CC directly, I'll go elsewhere. I haven't seen anything I
    need that badly on EBay.

    > Within a few days I got an e-mail asking me to go to their Web
    > site to confirm my "account status"

    Fool. I never respond to anything "financial" sent to me by email. Yes,
    I get PayPal stuff daily. Since I don't deal with PayPal, it gets binned
    directly. If PayPal can't deal with its name and do a serious thumping on
    anyone treading on its "good" name, they deserve to go under.


    > looked genuine, the logos, layout
    > etc. were all PayPal URLs... except for the Submit button which was some
    > Ph***in' Phishing creep. I have to think this was linked to some PayPal
    > employee/insider. It's that easy to get caught and I have to think that
    > many people would in that situation.

    Why? All the code/logos are public, or can be snatched easily enough. I
    never respond to email directed at a commercial site. I'll enter the site
    on my own, thanks!


    --
    Keith
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    > I refuse to use PayPal, largely becay=use of such breaches.
    > If the vendor doesn't take my CC directly, I'll go elsewhere.
    > I haven't seen anything I need that badly on EBay.

    Agreed. PayPal seems too withdrawal friendly, and
    insufficiently depositor friendly for me to trust them with
    my money. There probably are some anti-fraud measures they
    could take, but I've seen no signs.

    -- Robert
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:11:39 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    >On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:29:45 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
    <<snip>>

    >> Yep and I had recent experience which illustrates just what you outlined:
    >> I signed up with PayPal because it was the only way to pay for an item I
    >> wanted.
    >
    >I refuse to use PayPal, largely becay=use of such breaches. If the vendor
    >doesn't take my CC directly, I'll go elsewhere. I haven't seen anything I
    >need that badly on EBay.

    This was an item which is not available elsewhere from a small outfit in
    Canada - www.nextphoto.net as it happens. I had my doubts about Paypal but
    made a decision to go ahead.

    >> Within a few days I got an e-mail asking me to go to their Web
    >> site to confirm my "account status"
    >
    >Fool. I never respond to anything "financial" sent to me by email. Yes,
    >I get PayPal stuff daily. Since I don't deal with PayPal, it gets binned
    >directly. If PayPal can't deal with its name and do a serious thumping on
    >anyone treading on its "good" name, they deserve to go under.

    I didn't say I responded. In fact I caught the oddball URL before any
    damage.

    >> looked genuine, the logos, layout
    >> etc. were all PayPal URLs... except for the Submit button which was some
    >> Ph***in' Phishing creep. I have to think this was linked to some PayPal
    >> employee/insider. It's that easy to get caught and I have to think that
    >> many people would in that situation.
    >
    >Why? All the code/logos are public, or can be snatched easily enough. I
    >never respond to email directed at a commercial site. I'll enter the site
    >on my own, thanks!

    There are ways to protect against cross-site scripting. The banks which
    allow it and PayPal just need to implement some security against it.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:58:26 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

    > On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:11:39 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:29:45 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
    > <<snip>>
    >
    >>> Yep and I had recent experience which illustrates just what you outlined:
    >>> I signed up with PayPal because it was the only way to pay for an item I
    >>> wanted.
    >>
    >>I refuse to use PayPal, largely becay=use of such breaches. If the vendor
    >>doesn't take my CC directly, I'll go elsewhere. I haven't seen anything I
    >>need that badly on EBay.
    >
    > This was an item which is not available elsewhere from a small outfit in
    > Canada - www.nextphoto.net as it happens. I had my doubts about Paypal but
    > made a decision to go ahead.

    There is no item worthy of exposing myself unessarily to identity theft.
    PayPal doesn't have any corner on the payment business. Indeed if they
    don't take a CC, I'd rather not do business with them. ...likely whay I
    haven't yet put anything on EBay (have some of the MIL's stuff I have to
    get rid of).
    >
    >>> Within a few days I got an e-mail asking me to go to their Web site to
    >>> confirm my "account status"
    >>
    >>Fool. I never respond to anything "financial" sent to me by email. Yes,
    >>I get PayPal stuff daily. Since I don't deal with PayPal, it gets
    >>binned directly. If PayPal can't deal with its name and do a serious
    >>thumping on anyone treading on its "good" name, they deserve to go
    >>under.
    >
    > I didn't say I responded. In fact I caught the oddball URL before any
    > damage.

    (wasn't intentionally directed at you). You were about there, so how many
    did *not* catch the redirection? How many accounts did they rip?

    >>> looked genuine, the logos, layout
    >>> etc. were all PayPal URLs... except for the Submit button which was
    >>> some Ph***in' Phishing creep. I have to think this was linked to some
    >>> PayPal employee/insider. It's that easy to get caught and I have to
    >>> think that many people would in that situation.
    >>
    >>Why? All the code/logos are public, or can be snatched easily enough. I
    >>never respond to email directed at a commercial site. I'll enter the
    >>site on my own, thanks!
    >
    > There are ways to protect against cross-site scripting. The banks which
    > allow it and PayPal just need to implement some security against it.

    If you think the banks care about you, think about how checks are cleared
    these days. *ANYONE* with the (routing) numbers off the bottom of your
    check can clear out your account and cause untold damage to your life. At
    least with CCs you have some legal recourse and the issueing banks even
    seem to help catching the perveyors of fraud here (perhpas because they
    *are* on the hook?).

    --
    Keith
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Google