Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #1549 > unrolled thread

[CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works"

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-13 09:08 +0000
    Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-13 22:51 -0700
      Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-14 09:56 +0000
        Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2014-03-14 10:56 +0000
          Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-03-14 11:35 +0000
            Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" Morten Nygaard Åsnes <mnaasnes@gmail.com> - 2014-03-14 13:41 +0100
              Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-14 16:55 +0000
                Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-14 13:20 -0700
            Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-14 16:51 +0000
              Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 05:34 +0100
                Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-16 10:55 +0000
                  Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 19:40 +0100
            Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2014-03-15 20:24 +0000
          Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-16 05:16 +0100
            Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-17 16:54 -0700
        Re: [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works" Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-14 16:38 +0000

#1549 — [CM] "Encrypt everything" vs "advertising is how it works"

From the «consumerism is good for you» department:
Title: A Call for a Highly Encrypted Future
Author: By NICOLE PERLROTH
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:56:07 -0400
Link: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/a-call-for-a-highly-encrypted-future/
Podcast Download URL: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/03/11/business/SNOWDEN/SNOWDEN-thumbStandard.jpg

It is an interesting thought. But the best way to protect information from
government snoops could conflict directly with the advertising-driven
business models of many Internet companies.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1577

On 2014-03-13 09:08:23 +0000, RS Wood said:

> From the «consumerism is good for you» department:
> Title: A Call for a Highly Encrypted Future
> Author: By NICOLE PERLROTH
> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:56:07 -0400
> Link: 
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/a-call-for-a-highly-encrypted-future/ 
> 
> Podcast Download URL: 
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/03/11/business/SNOWDEN/SNOWDEN-thumbStandard.jpg 
> 
> 
> It is an interesting thought. But the best way to protect information from
> government snoops could conflict directly with the advertising-driven
> business models of many Internet companies.

What would really be lost if all advertising-driven web sites failed?  
Not much.  I say we call their bluff anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1581

On 14/03/14 05:51, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> On 2014-03-13 09:08:23 +0000, RS Wood said:

> What would really be lost if all advertising-driven web sites failed?
> Not much.  I say we call their bluff anyway.
>

Bye bye google.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1583

On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
> Bye bye google.

And good riddance.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1585

On 14/03/14 10:56, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>> Bye bye google.
>
> And good riddance.
>

You know of a better search engine? Because I'd like to try it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1591

On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
> You know of a better search engine? Because I'd like to try it.

None are better than Google at actual searching, but DuckDuckGo.com and 
Startpage.com are two privacy oriented alternatives that are "good enough".
Startpage.com uses the google search engine, so it should give similar 
results (but not the same results as regular google search, because it 
strips out all identifying information that Google uses to personalize its
results).

-- 
~
~
~
:wq

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1605

On 2014-03-14, Morten Nygaard Åsnes <mnaasnes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>> You know of a better search engine? Because I'd like to try it.
>
> None are better than Google at actual searching, but DuckDuckGo.com and 
> Startpage.com are two privacy oriented alternatives that are "good enough".
> Startpage.com uses the google search engine, so it should give similar 
> results (but not the same results as regular google search, because it 
> strips out all identifying information that Google uses to personalize its
> results).
>

Those would never be honeypots for those who want to avoid interest?...
No, never, they just would'nt do that, would they?

Sroogle (sp?) used  to be advertised as untraced Google.




-- 
maus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1617

On 2014-03-14 16:55:06 +0000, greymausg said:

> On 2014-03-14, Morten Nygaard Åsnes <mnaasnes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>>> You know of a better search engine? Because I'd like to try it.
>> 
>> None are better than Google at actual searching, but DuckDuckGo.com and
>> Startpage.com are two privacy oriented alternatives that are "good enough".
>> Startpage.com uses the google search engine, so it should give similar
>> results (but not the same results as regular google search, because it
>> strips out all identifying information that Google uses to personalize its
>> results).
>> 
> 
> Those would never be honeypots for those who want to avoid interest?...
> No, never, they just would'nt do that, would they?
> 
> Sroogle (sp?) used  to be advertised as untraced Google.

Duck Duck Go is a great search engine.  They pull results from many 
sources, they have a very good anti-SEO scheme, and they have all kinds 
of neat little command line type shortcuts you can put into your 
searches to save time.  Much better than Google.  With Google you can 
search for most anything and get millions of hits, mostly unrelated to 
your search.  With DDG you might only get 50 results but they are 
almost always much more relevant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1603

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:35:53 +0000, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
wrote:

>On 14/03/14 10:56, Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>>> Bye bye google.
>>
>> And good riddance.
>>
>
>You know of a better search engine? Because I'd like to try it.

 TBH, with google being the way it is, you might as well use Bing. I
suspect MS only decided they were in with a chance once google had
broken their promise of "Do no evil" so long ago that even the
consumers were noticing how shitty their search results had become
from the pollution of crass commercialism actively being encouraged by
google.
-- 
Regards, J B Good

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1655

On 2014-03-14, Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:35:53 +0000, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On 14/03/14 10:56, Roger Blake wrote:
>>> On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>>>> Bye bye google.
>>>
>>> And good riddance.
>>>
>>
>>You know of a better search engine? Because I'd like to try it.
>
>  TBH, with google being the way it is, you might as well use Bing. I
> suspect MS only decided they were in with a chance once google had
> broken their promise of "Do no evil" so long ago that even the
> consumers were noticing how shitty their search results had become
> from the pollution of crass commercialism actively being encouraged by
> google.

At one time I could search for, say, a printer manual and get what I wanted
pretty quickly.  Then one day I tried and most of the results were prices
for the piece of hardware concerned, no manuals in sight.

I, my employer or a client had already got the hardware concerned so prices
were totally useless as search results.

It was about that time a hosting ISP started sending me Google vouchers
for 50-100 bucks at a time.  What was I going to do with those when all
I was running was a local resident's association site?

Google had moved into the "pick and shovel" business.

-- 
Paul Sture

While Twitter was down I got a new job, got married and learned how to
play the bagpipes                                    -- @flamingowurst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1670

On 2014-03-16, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> On 2014-03-14, Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:35:53 +0000, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 14/03/14 10:56, Roger Blake wrote:
>>>> On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>>>>> Bye bye google.
>>>>
>>>> And good riddance.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You know of a better search engine? Because I'd like to try it.
>>
>>  TBH, with google being the way it is, you might as well use Bing. I
>> suspect MS only decided they were in with a chance once google had
>> broken their promise of "Do no evil" so long ago that even the
>> consumers were noticing how shitty their search results had become
>> from the pollution of crass commercialism actively being encouraged by
>> google.
>
> At one time I could search for, say, a printer manual and get what I wanted
> pretty quickly.  Then one day I tried and most of the results were prices
> for the piece of hardware concerned, no manuals in sight.
>
> I, my employer or a client had already got the hardware concerned so prices
> were totally useless as search results.
>
> It was about that time a hosting ISP started sending me Google vouchers
> for 50-100 bucks at a time.  What was I going to do with those when all
> I was running was a local resident's association site?
>
> Google had moved into the "pick and shovel" business.
>


Pity about the way Google has gone, I thought it was a progressive
 company. Most enteties, when they get on top, concentrate on stopping
innovation, which they see as a threat.

-- 
maus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1689

On 2014-03-16, greymausg <maus@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2014-03-16, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
>> On 2014-03-14, Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:35:53 +0000, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 14/03/14 10:56, Roger Blake wrote:
>>>>> On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Bye bye google.
>>>>>
>>>>> And good riddance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You know of a better search engine? Because I'd like to try it.
>>>
>>>  TBH, with google being the way it is, you might as well use Bing. I
>>> suspect MS only decided they were in with a chance once google had
>>> broken their promise of "Do no evil" so long ago that even the
>>> consumers were noticing how shitty their search results had become
>>> from the pollution of crass commercialism actively being encouraged by
>>> google.
>>
>> At one time I could search for, say, a printer manual and get what I wanted
>> pretty quickly.  Then one day I tried and most of the results were prices
>> for the piece of hardware concerned, no manuals in sight.
>>
>> I, my employer or a client had already got the hardware concerned so prices
>> were totally useless as search results.
>>
>> It was about that time a hosting ISP started sending me Google vouchers
>> for 50-100 bucks at a time.  What was I going to do with those when all
>> I was running was a local resident's association site?
>>
>> Google had moved into the "pick and shovel" business.
>>
>
>
> Pity about the way Google has gone, I thought it was a progressive
>  company. Most enteties, when they get on top, concentrate on stopping
> innovation, which they see as a threat.
>

Yes.  I've worked for a couple of companies who were going somewhere until
they built their shiny new HQ.  At roughly that point everyone seemed to
take their minds off what made the company successful in the first place
and get involved in departmental empire building and office politics.

December 2010: Google Buys Giant New York Building for $1.9 Billion

<http://www.wired.com/business/2010/12/google-nyc/>

"The building’s previous owners, a consortium led by Taconic Investment
Partners, knew that proximity to the fiber-line would be attractive to
companies, so they tricked out the building with something called a
network-neutral “Meet-Me” room, which is literally a room filled with
networking equipment that allows the tenants to connect with each other —
and the fiber-line.

Thus, 111 Eighth Avenue has become known as one of the most important
so-called telecom carrier hotels on the Eastern seaboard, if not the
entire United States.

But of course, Google already knew that, which is why it moved into the
building in the first place in 2006. It’s also the reason that companies
like Verizon, Sprint, Level 3, WebMD, Nike, BarnesandNoble.com and ad
agency Deutsch are tenants."

-- 
Paul Sture

"In that case," said Napoleon, "let us wait twenty minutes; when the enemy
is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1648

On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
> You know of a better search engine? Because I'd like to try it.

I frankly preferred archie.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1654

On 2014-03-14, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
> On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>> Bye bye google.
>
> And good riddance.

But can someone grab the their usenet archives first please?

-- 
Paul Sture

While Twitter was down I got a new job, got married and learned how to
play the bagpipes                                    -- @flamingowurst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1751

On 2014-03-16 04:16:58 +0000, Paul Sture said:

> On 2014-03-14, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2014-03-14, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
>>> Bye bye google.
>> 
>> And good riddance.
> 
> But can someone grab the their usenet archives first please?

I don't think they provide a good interface for this and they are very 
much against scraping "their" assets.  Sadly I don't think this is 
possible.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1602

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:56:37 +0000, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
wrote:

>On 14/03/14 05:51, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>> On 2014-03-13 09:08:23 +0000, RS Wood said:
>
>> What would really be lost if all advertising-driven web sites failed?
>> Not much.  I say we call their bluff anyway.
>>
>
>Bye bye google.

 You forgot to add the mandatory "and good riddance!" (the phrase "Bye
bye google." just looks so incomplete without those extra three
words).
-- 
Regards, J B Good

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web