backtop


Print 175 comment(s) - last by JonnyDough.. on Dec 12 at 11:01 PM

Usually mild-mannered Google is fighting back against what it sees as payola

Google is known for its "do no evil philosophy" which sees it doing everything from planting trees to investing in alternative energy and greening its servers.  This leads some to suspect that Google is a push-over.  However, when it comes to important issues or people it feels are evil-doers, Google pulls no punches.

This week Google lashed out at what it feels a trend towards cronyism in the capital.  In particular, it targeted Scott Cleland, who had written a divisive piece on how Google was failing to pay its "fair share of the Internet's cost".  The only problem is that Mr. Cleland is employed by AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and other communications companies to run a 24-7 anti-Google group.  The telecoms are fighting Google's policy of net-neutrality saying that websites should have to pay to be recognized.

Mr. Cleland has not gone lightly on Google.  He's written such rhetoric as "Google steals" and says Google connives in a "modern-day Machiavellian plot".  He even goes as far as to insult how the company's executives dress.

While Google has led such comments mostly slide in the past, it decided the time had come to fight back.  Richard Whitt, Google's Washington telecom counsel, in a fiery blog post lashed out against Mr. Cleland and what he calls "payola punditry", a disturbing trend in Washington D.C.   He states, "We don't fault Mr. Cleland for trying to do his job. But it's unfortunate that the phone and cable companies funding his work would rather launch poorly researched broadsides than help solve consumers' problems."

Responding to Mr. Cleland's insinuations that YouTube was killing the internet with excess traffic, he states, "Mr. Cleland's calculations about YouTube's impact are similarly flawed. Here he confuses "market share" with 'traffic share.' YouTube's share of video traffic is decidedly smaller than its market share. And typical YouTube traffic takes up far less bandwidth than downloading or streaming a movie."

With high-definition content streaming through iTunes and other outlets at unprecedented rates, the low-quality video streams are only a drop in the bucket in comparison.  No doubt YouTube has a great deal of total traffic, but it likely uses no more than other large bandwidth users, and likely less than some like iTunes.

Mr. Cleland insists that there's nothing wrong with the industry paying him to attack Google.  As to his sponsors he states, "I am fully disclosed."

On the criticisms of his calculations, he responds, "I took a difficult subject that's never been written about before...This was a straightforward, transparent attempt to estimate something of significance."

Google and its allies -- eBay, Amazon.com -- are according to some analysts looking to left-leaning President elect Barack Obama to help stomp out patent mongers, pass sweeping net neutrality initiatives, prevent data caps on "unlimited" accounts and data throttling, and open up the unused white space in the FCC spectrum.  However, they may be in for a tough fight as the conservatives in Congress backed by the telecoms are looking to block these moves.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Wow.
By austinag on 12/5/2008 10:55:28 AM , Rating: 5
How much does one get paid to work in a 24/7 anti-google center? Is it kind of like tech support with a bad attitude? I could do that.




RE: Wow.
By mrteddyears on 12/5/2008 11:03:00 AM , Rating: 4
Do you want my resume for the night shift and whats the email jobs@Ihategoogle24/7pleasepayme.com


RE: Wow.
By Proteusza on 12/5/2008 11:04:42 AM , Rating: 5
If somebody as useless as this guy can do it, can you imagine how much someone competent could earn?

Its a good thing that (hopefully) all of those competent people would rather work for Google than shill against them.


RE: Wow.
By Denithor on 12/7/2008 10:52:22 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is that these incompetent idiots do influence Congress which passes the laws that regulate how Google & others do business.

Smart and competent have no place in government.


Who pays you to say that and credability
By pjs on 12/5/2008 11:41:41 AM , Rating: 2
Mr. Cleland is employed by who? And why? Those companies are just after my money, so Mr. Cleland has NO credability with me!




RE: Who pays you to say that and credability
By dever on 12/5/2008 12:56:30 PM , Rating: 1
Um, which companies that you purchase from AREN'T after your money?

If a company isn't trying to win my money through my voluntary use of their product or service, they most likely are selling crap.

I'm astounded by people who see a problem with companies trying to earn your business.

Would you just prefer the government take your entire paycheck and dole out the products it deems fit for you? I much prefer voluntary exchange.


RE: Who pays you to say that and credability
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/08, Rating: -1
By BadAcid on 12/5/2008 2:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
Stop, I already have a headache today. Please just tell me this is a troll.


RE: Who pays you to say that and credability
By sinful on 12/7/2008 9:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the republicans and their multi-billion dollar NO-BID contracts are Sooooo much better.


By whiskerwill on 12/7/2008 10:45:17 PM , Rating: 1
Do you have any idea how many hundreds of no-bid contracts were awarded under Clinton? Even Haliburton itself got a few back then.

It's amazing how many people fall for outright propaganda without even trying to use their brains.


By geddarkstorm on 12/5/2008 1:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
You can't be a company if you aren't after money. The difference with Google, and why it has such a "friendly" demeanor is it isn't after the money of web browsers - it's after the money of advertisers. That is, the customers of Google are marketers, not us.


By OAKside24 on 12/7/2008 11:30:25 AM , Rating: 2
I'd prefer if some of these companies just made the best possible product and let the pieces fall as they may. Maybe that doesn't work anymore?

Now it seems many companies focus on profits, advertising, strategy, lobbyists, etc. and forget about the quality of the product . "Fuck it, let's just make this crap as good as the competition and our ad firm will handle the rest." And obviously people buy it.

I understand people don't want to research every product they buy, and they definitely shouldn't have to. Unfortunately, if the better products from better companies are to survive than that's what it's come to.


By Avitar on 12/9/2008 12:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
It is the vigorous efforts of those companies to prevent me from doing business with anyone else that others and I object to. A quite reasonable congressman proposed that any company with right-of-way to your house, Gas Company, Water Company, electric company Sewage Company, etc be allowed to run fiber optics to your house and offer Internet access and cable TV to you. These same companies that have paid so much in kickback bribes to local politicians to block competition went absolutely ape.

These companies are trying to charge all that the market will bear and restrict the market at the same time. I do not like Google I think that they are bad guys but in this case, they are going up against worse guys.


People like Mr. Cleland
By LorKha on 12/5/2008 12:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's because of people like Mr. Cleland who doesn't have anything better to offer the world except attack internet companies, that we are not as advance as some other countries... AKA Japan.

24/7 anti-google company. I guess the guy didn't get his porn with google. thus got mad.




RE: People like Mr. Cleland
By FITCamaro on 12/5/2008 1:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah Japan has it right. They just send ninjas to take out rivals.


RE: People like Mr. Cleland
By BadAcid on 12/5/2008 2:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
Ninja Robots to take out jet pack armed American cyborgs.


RE: People like Mr. Cleland
By Chocobollz on 12/9/2008 3:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
They don't just send out ninja! They send beautiful kunoichi! (aka. female ninja) ;-]


I can't live without Google.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/2008 1:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
Well, can you ?

The Internet IS the greatest collection of knowledge the world has ever seen. But lets face it, without Google it would be like walking into the Congressional library with no assistant or Dewey Decimal system and expecting to find every obscure book or passage you want.

I remember that there was a time before Google. And that time, frankly, sucked ass.

Now I'm not sure what this congressmans problem is. All I know is, hes fu%$#@% with a national treasure. God bless you Google. And god damn anyone tries to mess with you.




By GeneralJohnson on 12/5/2008 2:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
NO NO I COULD NOT LIVE WITH OUT THEM!!!!

All Hail Google.

i remember what it was like with out Google it was extreamly hard to find any thing msn(its now live)at the time stunk.
you could not find any thing Google works theres hardest to come up with new and better ides and i love them for it.

the 24/7 hate Google thing needs to go up in flames


RE: I can't live without Google.
By TheMan876 on 12/5/2008 2:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
walking into the Congressional library with no assistant or Dewey Decimal system


Umm... The Congressional library uses the Library of Congress Classification system.


money for nothing?
By lucyfek on 12/5/2008 8:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get morons at telecoms. they should be more than happy to have bandwidth hogs at both sides of the pipe (especially that both Google and millions of consumers pay their internet bills). nobody is doing a favor to anyone. if they want to keep their "pipes" empty they might as well stick it up their a.. - the other end will make for a great mouthpiece (and I'll keep my money).
or maybe just bail them out.




RE: money for nothing?
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 8:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't get morons at telecoms. they should be more than happy to have bandwidth hogs at both sides of the pipe
Who says they're not?


RE: money for nothing?
By DigitalFreak on 12/5/2008 9:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
ZZZzzzzzzz.....


Google is leftist
By phxfreddy on 12/5/2008 12:52:57 PM , Rating: 2
......and even a loonie toon like the UnaBomber has the left pegged. They are critical of everything until they get into power. Then they are anything but democratic or "mild mannered".




RE: Google is leftist
By Fronzbot on 12/6/2008 1:33:36 AM , Rating: 3
So you mean to say that conservatives weren't critical of Bill Clinton when he was having his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Sure this has nothing to do with the google topic but I'm showing you your lapse in logic.

Every single part of the political spectrum is what you just described: critical of their opponent until they are in power. Saying only the left is like this is, I believe, a sign of mental retardation.


What a shock.
By PascalT on 12/6/2008 9:15:26 AM , Rating: 2
"However, they may be in for a tough fight as the conservatives in Congress backed by the telecoms are looking to block these moves."

What a shock! You mean the republicans are defending big companies in exchange for Americans' rights? Just like they are backing the NFL in their action to try to ban online poker for the sake of the NFL's sports betting business? Or their propaganda against global warming for the sake of the oil companies?




It's interesting...
By JonnyDough on 12/9/2008 5:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone disagreeing with Masher gets down rated on every DT commentary. I think Masher needs to be let go.




Google not evil? Haha
By thebeastie on 12/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Google not evil? Haha
By thebeastie on 12/5/08, Rating: 0
Some Truth
By TomZ on 12/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: Some Truth
By Bateluer on 12/5/2008 11:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
No, there's no truth to it. Its just that control is not in the hands of the large telcos, empowering the people, infuriating the telcos.


RE: Some Truth
By AntiM on 12/5/2008 12:58:47 PM , Rating: 5
I don't see that the telcos have a leg to stand on. They're basically saying that since people are pulling a lot of data from YouTube, then Google should have to pay some of the cost of maintaining the internet pipes. That's total baloney. We users pay a monthly fee to keep those pipes maintained and you can bet the telcos are making gobs of money. If anything, the telcos should be paying Google for giving us a good reason to use and to pay for those pipes in the first place. Also for making the internet much easier to navigate and find entertainment.
By their logic, anyone that has a website should have to pay extra fees depending on how many people visit it.
It seems to me that they want everyone to pay for bandwidth but they don't want anyone using it.


RE: Some Truth
By Solandri on 12/5/2008 4:31:09 PM , Rating: 3
You're missing the biggest reason why their argument is bunk: Google is already paying for its bandwidth.

Just like you pay your ISP to access the net, Google pays for its connectivity and bandwidth to its ISP (actually, they probably have several for redundancy). That they're able to leverage their bandwidth to yield a high $/MB profit is a testament to their business model and acumen. The telecos, who have nothing to do with Google nor its connection to the internet (other than their customers wanting to use Google), want a piece of that without having to do any work themselves. If they want to charge Google money, they need to become Google's ISP. Then they can charge as much as they want; at least until another ISP offers to provide Google the same service for less. You know, this thing called the free market?

The telecos are in the position of selling a commodity (bandwidth), and Google has a magic box that turns that commodity into gold. The telecos don't have such a box, so they're trying to come up with a way to steal a part of Google's. If any of these telecos truly felt they weren't getting paid enough for Google's traffic, they could just block Google's IPs from their customers. They don't though because they know they'd lose 95% of their customers if they did it. So they already are profiting from Google - their customers sign up for internet access with them to use Google's services.


RE: Some Truth
By ChronoReverse on 12/5/2008 11:13:35 AM , Rating: 5
Eh. Google also pays for every single cent of the bandwidth they use for sending out stuff too.

The only issue is that because Google has money and is successful, the ISPs want a piece of the pie.


RE: Some Truth
By nismotigerwvu on 12/5/2008 11:31:50 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The only issue is that because Google has money and is successful, the ISPs want a piece of the pie.


+1


RE: Some Truth
By derwin on 12/5/2008 11:40:05 AM , Rating: 2
Through google we benefit greatly as well. Were google to have to start paying for all of this, that would only mean all of google's users would too. I for one am entierly for a free internet.


RE: Some Truth
By MozeeToby on 12/5/2008 11:54:05 AM , Rating: 2
Imagine that there were two seperate companies, the phone company and the company that writes the phone books. Should the phone book company have to pay each and every person whose number is included in the book? Of course not. Should the phone book company have to pay the phone company to hand out the books? Of course not.

Google gathers freely available information, and supplies it in an easy to use format (aka, a searchable database). It doesn't owe anyone anything, except for the bandwidth that they themselves use.


RE: Some Truth
By Arramol on 12/5/2008 12:07:58 PM , Rating: 1
But how much traffic would those copyright holders get if search engines didn't help people find them? Maybe they should be paying Google for the increased web traffic. Having people find you via Google search is a lot cheaper than advertising.


Other way around
By Saist on 12/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: Other way around
By sgw2n5 on 12/5/2008 2:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
You might want to actually look up the definition of liberalism someday... you might be pleasantly surprised.

And yes, the Democratic party of 25 years ago is dead and gone. There is no such thing as a "tax and spend, big government liberal," similarly, there does not exist a "fiscal conservitive (Goldwater) Republican party" either.

Remind me, was it the "conservatives" who were in power when the government (and the national debt) grew to absurd proportions??? I forget.


RE: Other way around
By whiskerwill on 12/5/2008 2:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no such thing as a "tax and spend, big government liberal,
You haven't see Obama's voting record in Congress, have you?

quote:
Remind me, was it the "conservatives" who were in power when the government (and the national debt) grew to absurd proportions??? I forget.
Apparently you did forget. Democrats have been in power in the House from 1955 to 1995 (a full 40 years). They controlled the Senate also in that period except for 4 years in the 80s.


RE: Other way around
By sgw2n5 on 12/5/2008 3:05:52 PM , Rating: 3
You obviously haven't seen any of the "conservatives" voting records either I'd take it?

The federal government and the debt have grown tremendously during the last 8 years (6 of which had republicans in control of the house, senate) under a republican president.

Debt and spend bible thumping neo-cons are all that remain of the once fiscally conservative republican party. Hopefully (for the good of everyone) that will change.


RE: Other way around
By whiskerwill on 12/5/2008 3:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
Let's get our facts straight. If one takes out Iraq and Afghan War spending (which is temporary, not a permanent increase), then spending didn't increase very much.

And in 2007 (the first year after Democrats took back over) spending went up more than it did the previous 3 years put together.

Yeah, Bush really hasn't been a true conservative. But comparing him to Obama's voting record in Congress is just goofy. Except for war measures, Obama didn't vote against a single spending bill his entire (brief) time in office. He's on record as being for almost every government program you can think of, and he's already proposed over a dozen new government agencies of various sorts, before he's even been sworn in.


RE: Other way around
By VooDooAddict on 12/6/2008 12:21:01 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry but war spending is still spending. There's no magic bottomless checkbook for wars. The administration didn't ask anything of the public to pay for these wars. No war bonds, no temporary tax increases.

(In the interest of disclosure - libertarian leaning independent)


RE: Other way around
By whiskerwill on 12/6/2008 7:43:00 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry, but war spending is spending that stops. It's temporary. An increase in welfare or some other program is pretty much permanent.


RE: Other way around
By omnicronx on 12/7/2008 12:57:15 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize that from the amount of money spent on the war (to date), you would have enough money to make every single american a billionaire 3 times over. By the time the war is over, and you take into account all the medical bills/services that the government are required to offer the soldiers, that number could rise to as much as every american could be a billionaire 6 times over.

And if you can't comprehend this, I will make it simple, you could have paid for medicare and welfare for the next 100+ years with the money spent on the war, and this is being conservative.


RE: Other way around
By omnicronx on 12/7/2008 1:00:38 AM , Rating: 2
oh man.. not billionaire, millionaire haha. This is why there should be an edit button.


RE: Other way around
By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2008 1:51:16 AM , Rating: 3
You're still off by several orders of magnitude.


RE: Other way around
By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2008 1:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
> "You do realize that from the amount of money spent on the war (to date), you would have enough money to make every single american a billionaire 3 times over"

Lol, what? I don't believe you meant to type that. To "make every single american" a billionaire would require 300 million billion = 300,000 trillion. To do it "3 times over" would be almost a million trillion...far, far money than exists in the entire world.

> "you could have paid for medicare and welfare for the next 100+ years with the money spent on the war"

This is almost as incorrect as your first statement. We spend far, far more on entitlement programs (Medicaire, Welfare, Social Security) than the entire Iraq war.

The federal budget is $2.7T. 22% is Medicaire/Medicaid. 20% SS. Welfare runs between 2-12%, depending on how exactly you define which programs belong to it. All total, the cost is about $1.5 trillion/year. Current cost of the Iraq war? About 150 billion/year...or 1/10 as much.


RE: Other way around
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2008 9:21:08 AM , Rating: 2
Giving every citizen millions or billions wouldn't give us national security though, would it ?

I know I'm wasting my time. Pacifists simply don't agree that ANY war is neccessary, no matter what the circumstances.


RE: Other way around
By MadMan007 on 12/8/2008 7:57:45 AM , Rating: 2
Pissing off people who are nutso in the first place doesn't help national security either. You have to learn the history of the Middle East going back 100 years or so to understand that these people are basically pissed because we mess around in their countries so much so rather than sit back and take it they fight back. The terrorists have said themselves they want the US out of their country but it didn't start with us, it goes back through the Soviets, Great Britain and other former colonial powers, the Ottoman Empire, we are just the latest ones to interfere. The 911 Commission also concluded that one of the reasons for the 911 attacks was our interference in other nation's affairs. (G HW Bush promised the Saudis we would leave entirely after the Gulf War, no permanent bases. Didn't happen.) All the religious idealism crap is just propaganda to get a wider populance riled up.

I also don't see where anyone said war is never necessary. Iraq was about oil, plan and simple, that war was sold on lies (not lack of information) and there's no denying that at this point. We could have put the money toward finding ways to reduce reliance on oil instead. Afghanistan was justifiable as a reaction to 911 but figuring out the cause of 911 and correcting that is more important for long-term 'victory' than playing whack-a-mole with the Taliban. The CIA was also doing a fine job in Afghanistan before the formal military-industrial establishment felt the need to exert their influence and make the conflict larger. In many ways these wars have made us less secure and have been used to justify taking away many of our freedoms to boot.


RE: Other way around
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2008 12:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pissing off people who are nutso in the first place doesn't help national security either.


Thats such a rediculous liberal talking point I'm getting tired of hearing it. Worse off, it actually excuses their behavior as it being somehow OUR fault. What happened to diplomacy ?

quote:
You have to learn the history of the Middle East going back 100 years or so to understand that these people are basically pissed because we mess around in their countries so much so rather than sit back and take it they fight back.


Maybe you should do some studying. Because from what I have studied, I have learned these people have been " nutso " longer than the United States has ever BEEN a country. So I wonder, after the " great satan " no longer becomes a problem, who's next ? And APPEASERS like you will STILL find a way to make excuses for them.

quote:
The 911 Commission also concluded that one of the reasons for the 911 attacks was our interference in other nation's affairs.


Hmmm, the 911 Commission stated SEVERAL things. Aren't you being a bit too selective ?

quote:
(G HW Bush promised the Saudis we would leave entirely after the Gulf War, no permanent bases. Didn't happen.)


Ha ! This takes the cake. Are you actually saying we forced bases onto a sovereign country and they had no say at all in it ?

quote:
I also don't see where anyone said war is never necessary. Iraq was about oil, plan and simple, that war was sold on lies (not lack of information) and there's no denying that at this point.


Ok, now we know your a brainwashed minion. The " war for oil " mantra is not only tired, but its been prooven wrong. Where, I ask you, is all this oil we took from Iraq?

quote:
In many ways these wars have made us less secure and have been used to justify taking away many of our freedoms to boot.


And in far more ways we are MORE secure.

I don't even know why I'm wasting my time. You proved yourself to be another " war for oil " liberal brainwashed bobbing-head doll. I don't have time for conspiracy theorists or idiots. And you appear to be both.


RE: Other way around
By akosixiv on 12/8/2008 9:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
+1 for you sir.

Only the US and its allies have the means to enforce a stalemate in the powers of the middle east.

If it had not stepped in there in the first place, things would have been a lot worse right now.

The US learned first hand before that even if it did not meddle straight away in the affairs of other's, she could still get dragged into a war. (ex. pearl harbor & 9-11).

Rather than risk getting hit big time, it chose to suppress the problem even before it grew to something unmanageable. That action cost money, cost lives, but the cost of doing nothing is higher.


RE: Other way around
By Chocobollz on 12/9/2008 11:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather doing nothing than killing peoples.


RE: Other way around
By SiliconAddict on 12/6/2008 4:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
No kidding. If Eisenhower or Lincoln were alive today they would be horrified at what has been done to their party. The fundis have infected the Republican party like HIV and its killing it just as slowly. McCain was the closest thing to an Eisenhower Republican that we've seen in a generation and even that at the end of the day he too caved to his fundi puppetmasters. HE could have easily won against Obama if he truely had stuck to his guns and told the fundis to fuck off, I'm taking my party back. Instead he picked up Caribou Barbie and waundered off message with this Obama is palling around with terrorists bullshit.
As much as the fundis would like to put all gays on a small island somewhere I would like to pick up the bible belt and drop them into Mariana Trench then drop a few dozen nukes behind them just to be sure. They are a cancer to humanity....not the republican party....humanity in general. And understand I don't group the fundis in with people who are religious. I'm a Christian. However these things would make Jesus bend over and dry heave in disgust. Love thy neighbor as thy selves....yah right.

End rant.


RE: Other way around
By OAKside24 on 12/7/2008 11:03:52 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
HE could have easily won against Obama if he truely had stuck to his guns and told the fundis to fuck off, I'm taking my party back. Instead he picked up Caribou Barbie and waundered off message with this Obama is palling around with terrorists bullshit.

My thoughts exactly. What an election it could have been. I was waiting for the old McCain to wake up for about a year, but Palin was the dagger. He just ate up all the neo-con strategist advise and was totally transformed.

I guess now that "those other guys" are in power and are targeted by some of the same lobbyists we'll see if they don't cave as well. Politicians...
quote:
As much as the fundis would like to put all gays on a small island somewhere I would like to pick up the bible belt and drop them into Mariana Trench then drop a few dozen nukes behind them just to be sure. They are a cancer to humanity....not the republican party....humanity in general.

QFT & hilariousness


RE: Other way around
By BadAcid on 12/5/2008 2:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Ugh, more of you! Someone must have left the hitch off the coop door, it seems Chicken Little is running free again.


RE: Other way around
By kerpwnt on 12/5/2008 4:25:41 PM , Rating: 4
Have we forgotten Ted Stevens' "series of tubes" already? AT&T plays both sides of this game.


RE: Other way around
By William Gaatjes on 12/7/2008 5:15:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't say this loud enough, or long enough, if anybody thinks, for a second, that Presidential-Elect Obama, or any liberal democrat, believes in personal freedom or personal responsibility, they are clinically insane. Liberal Democrats do NOT believe in personal freedoms, that is part of their core you-can't-leave-it-out dogma. The Liberal Democrats are for Big Government Controlling Everything.


Absolute freedom does not exist. Because that definition would mean i should be able to kill you cause i should have that freedom. Or i should be able to abuse other people because i should have that freedom. I should be able to lie and scam and rob people because i should have that freedom. Freedom comes at a price. Freedom is only possible with rules to keep people from abusing freedom. Therefore there is no thing as absolute freedom only relative freedom exist in civilized countries. To keep the excesses away.

quote:
Has China and the U.S.S.R. taught US Citizens NOTHING?


You look at it way to black and white. As always the truth lies in the middle. You need some fuzzy logic. No control is no good. Communism is no good either because it gives the people in charge absolute freedom to do what they want as is shown when looking at the history of USSR and China.

In general speaking :
Both democrats and conservatives should work more together instead of a 2 camp fight. Both camps have good idea's. If you are not going to work together you wil stay divided and spend more time fighting eachother then actually solving your common problems. And most of the time these problems affect the other people in the world too.


RE: Other way around
By William Gaatjes on 12/7/2008 6:51:33 AM , Rating: 2
Relative freedom comes hand in hand with altruistic behaviour. You give a little, you receive a little...


RE: Other way around
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2008 9:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Absolute freedom does not exist. Because that definition would mean i should be able to kill you cause i should have that freedom. Or i should be able to abuse other people because i should have that freedom. I should be able to lie and scam and rob people because i should have that freedom.


Those aren't freedoms. I know what your trying to do, but its off base.

quote:
Both democrats and conservatives should work more together instead of a 2 camp fight.


They HAVE been working more together over the past few years, and the country has suffered from it. This is why the forefathers, among other reasons, were truly amazing men. The whole POINT of the 2 party system is that they would get as little done as possible.

The role of government has changed drastically. No longer is it content with providing security, roads, infrastructure etc etc. Governments goal, today, is to ingrain and anchor itself into EVERY aspect of its citizens lives. To enslave via entitlement. To silence via "interprating" the Constitution.

I remember after Obama won the election a spokesman on a TV interview said he was " ready to rule ". Rule !? That really got my attention. The president is supposed to serve the country, not rule it. But alas, this is what government is becoming.

Without checks and balances this country would be doomed. Period. The two party system, at odds with each other, is one of the BEST forms of this we have going.


RE: Other way around
By William Gaatjes on 12/7/2008 1:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those aren't freedoms. I know what your trying to do, but its off base.


I do not think so. Absolute freedom is to be able to do what you want. And what i wrote above could be something someone want to do. We as civilized people agree that freedom means that you can do what you want as long as you do not harm yourself, other people or other life within reasonable boundaries. Cleaning up for example does kill bacteria but we have to draw the line somewhere do we ... :)
If we would follow this way of thinking a little bit more we would already be up in space. Have our clean fuels and so on.

quote:
They HAVE been working more together over the past few years, and the country has suffered from it.

That is not working togehter to solve a common problem. That is more a "i scratch your back if you scratch mine" cooperation. No "Let's put our shoulders under it".

quote:
The role of government has changed drastically. No longer is it content with providing security, roads, infrastructure etc etc. Governments goal, today, is to ingrain and anchor itself into EVERY aspect of its citizens lives. To enslave via entitlement. To silence via "interprating" the Constitution.


That is the typical oscillation of life. Once everything was let go and the thought was everything will sort it self out. It didn't work and now the balance swings into the other direction. When there has been to much control ,voices will be raised to let go again. It is the same in every country. And history always repeats itself.

quote:
I remember after Obama won the election a spokesman on a TV interview said he was " ready to rule ". Rule !? That really got my attention. The president is supposed to serve the country, not rule it. But alas, this is what government is becoming.


I do not think you have to take every word he says literaly like you have done. It seems more of a victory phrase then a state of mind in my opinion. It even fit's your countries custom way of being enthusiastic.


RE: Other way around
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2008 12:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Absolute freedom is to be able to do what you want.


No, thats Anarchy. Freedom doesn't give you the right to take away someone else's inalienable right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Freedom, just because its bracketed by rules or standards of behavior, isn't just an illusion like you said. Thats all I'm really saying.

quote:
If we would follow this way of thinking a little bit more we would already be up in space. Have our clean fuels and so on.


?. You lost me there.

quote:
I do not think you have to take every word he says literaly like you have done. It seems more of a victory phrase then a state of mind in my opinion. It even fit's your countries custom way of being enthusiastic.


/shrug. We shall see. His track record makes it hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.


RE: Other way around
By William Gaatjes on 12/9/2008 4:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, thats Anarchy. Freedom doesn't give you the right to take away someone else's inalienable right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Freedom, just because its bracketed by rules or standards of behavior, isn't just an illusion like you said. Thats all I'm really saying.


I mean absolute freedom as that the individual can do what he/she wants. And i do not believe absolute freedom is anarchy, i prefer to call it chaos or end of humanity. I never sad that absolute freedom is an illusion. Those are your words.
I am just tired of people who think because it is a free country one can claim that one can do as one pleases. That is why i came up with the term of relative freedom which is based on altruistic motives. You give a little you receive a little. Relative freedom = civilization in the best sense of the word civilization.

quote:
quote: If we would follow this way of thinking a little bit more we would already be up in space. Have our clean fuels and so on.

?. You lost me there.


What i mean is that because people prefer to look more at their own interest the whole collective of people suffers from it. If that maybe by the abuse of the free market or religion. That is what i am trying to say, we would have been technologically more advanced if greed is not still the primary drive of most of humanity.

quote:
/shrug. We shall see. His track record makes it hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.


We sure will do...

I hope my post is clear enough. I wrote a good one but a accidentally pressed short cut key erased the page and all the text i wrote. My frustation made me less of a writer.


Google Does Steal.
By Smilin on 12/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: Google Does Steal.
By Spivonious on 12/5/2008 11:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
I think YouTube is exempt, since it is simply a provider and not a publisher. If the companies want to go after the people who are uploading the pirated videos, then that's totally within their rights. But YouTube is not responsible for what their users upload.

It would be like a company suing Wikipedia because someone posted classified company secrets. Bill Gates touches on this in his 1994 book "The Road Ahead". It's a very interesting read, even if a lot of what he predicts never really panned out (videoconferencing, virtual reality, "agents").


RE: Google Does Steal.
By Penti on 12/5/2008 1:43:35 PM , Rating: 1
Of course google steels in there business model. They use a lot of material unauthorized youtube wouldn't exist without it and google needs to be able to store stuff (but every website is free to block that so I wont regard that as steeling). It's however ridiculous to say that they steel bandwidth, they pay for that just like anyone else.

Spivonious Actually youtube/google would be responsible for the content of the websites in Sweden even if they do not act as a publisher (here you are either a publisher whose responsible for all that is on the site or running a bbs where you need to moderate). I'm sure most countries has something similar. The laws here are designed for self censorship in the most democratic country on this planet. The problem about running it as a BBS where you have responsibilities is that it isn't protected by the laws of freedom of the press. So they could try to censor you. However they don't really care about internet websites. So most break the law. So here google isn't a service provider (like a ISP) it's running a BBS thats used to convey messages in text, video/pictures and audio. Basically because they don't remove stuff that violates the law they would be fined or jailed for up to two years here if anybody would have cared to follow / enforce the law. Which they don't. That is if they would have been based here. They could also seize the servers and destroy them according to this law :) There are similar laws in the US both federal and state if I understand it correctly.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By CurseTheSky on 12/5/2008 12:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
The truth of the matter is, times are changing. The Internet in general has completely reshaped how we do so many things in our daily lives - how we work, how we shop, even how we think - and it's going to continue to change these things at a growing rate. The way intellectual (digital) property is handled and distributed will be no exception.

Yes, there IS copyrighted material on YouTube, indexed by various search engines, and readily available for (illegal) download. Yes, it does hurt the intellectual property owners' revenue every time someone pirates a song or watches an episode of their favorite show (commercial free) on YouTube rather than turning on their TV. However, at the same time, it's allowing their property to reach a much broader audience in a fraction of the time.

In the near future, I predict that we'll see a majority of digital content / intellectual property owners "caving in" to what we now view as piracy, welcoming it instead as a way to increase their fanbase (as is, a number of bands have their own YouTube accounts and even upload their own property). Revenue could instead be generated by tangible items (merchandising) and advertising. How many people would be visiting your favorite band's website every day if they could listen to their songs or watch their music videos streaming live, and even download a copy for themselves? If the band offers exclusive, frequent updates (whether through adding new content, blogs, or interaction with the fans) they'll have a constant supply of viewers. You could argue that they'll lose hits if the content is also available elsewhere, but with everything readily available from the source there isn't much of an incentive to go somewhere else.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By tdawg on 12/5/2008 12:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
I could have sworn that Google will pay content creators for their videos, in that they get a portion of ad revenues based on # of views of a video.

So, if Viacom and others embraced this rather than ran from it, they could earn a little bit every time someone watches one of their videos on youtube. Just like in Office Space, if you take fractions of a penny millions of times, it can add up. :)


RE: Google Does Steal.
By aharris on 12/5/2008 12:18:37 PM , Rating: 3
Hey look, it's Mr. Cleland behind an alias.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By Inkjammer on 12/5/2008 12:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the old Spongebong Hemppants clips and other VH1 ILL-ustrated segments we worked on are up on YouTube, people claiming they did them. It's weird seeing people take credit for work you created, claiming they mde it...

We put the (horrible) show together back when I was with Camp Chaos. But that's sort of life.

Monty Python did things the right way by embracing You Tube. They pulled the content that wasn't theirs and reposted better, high quality versions of it to YouTube to embrace the new technology. They embedded links to sales of thier videos, and accepted things for what it was.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By nafhan on 12/5/2008 12:34:38 PM , Rating: 4
This article has NOTHING to do with media piracy.

The telecom paid lobbyist is alleging that content providers should give money to the telecoms for the privilege of allowing users to get to the content they want to get to. Basically, as the middle man, they want to get paid from both sides.

The telecom's are just trying to get more money in an underhanded way through government legislation. If they were really having problems providing bandwidth, they could lower connection speeds and increase prices. Usage caps would also work, just don't call an account with usage caps "unlimited".


RE: Google Does Steal.
By TP715 on 12/5/2008 3:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
Could someone please explain something to me? Google pays a bunch of money for a bidirectional connection to the internet. I pay a bunch of money for a bidirectional connection to the internet. Why should Google pay extra money to be connected to me? Aren't the telcoms just asking deep pocketed Google to pay twice for the same thing? Will the next step be the telcoms asking me to pay twice for the same thing as well?


RE: Google Does Steal.
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 3:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
The telcos aren't asking for anything here. This is just one guy, who (under some totally separate other group he founded) has a very loose link to some telcos.

I don't blame you for being confused, based on how Mick wrote the article.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By DigitalFreak on 12/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Google Does Steal.
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 9:55:03 PM , Rating: 1
Try reading the article again, this time slowly. Then put the bong down and step away from the keyboard.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By spread on 12/5/2008 12:54:58 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be so ignorant.

This was an issue before. Now Google has implemented filters that can detect most copyrighted works through a kind of 'video fingerprint' and reject the copyrighted work. The work needs to be fingerprinted ahead of time which is why it does not work with very recent content like The Daily Show.

And YouTube users are NOT Google. Google does not make YouTube. Google owns and maintains YouTube and its run by the users.

Google also does not make a profit off the illegal works uploaded to YouTube. Google makes money off advertising revenue that is not tied in any way to specific content on YouTube.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 1:01:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Google also does not make a profit off the illegal works uploaded to YouTube.
In your own worlds, "don't be so ignorant". Youtube makes advertising dollars based on how many people come to their site. No one goes to Youtube to watch little Johnnies homemade video of his sister picking her nose. They come for copyrighted videos.

Filter or not, probably 90% of Google's most popular videos are all copyrighted, up without the permission of the owner.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By barjebus on 12/5/2008 3:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
Why would I go to a piece of crap service like YouTube for copyrighted works? If I want to see the latest family guy, or whatever, I'll go to Hula, or any of the other free web video sites that are legitimately offered. If I want to download it, I'll go to the pirate bay and download the entire season instead of watching a crappy and distorted video on YouTube.

YouTube is for sharing user created content. Some of that contains scenes from copyrighted works, or recordings at events that are supposed to only be recorded by the networks (like sports events, concerts, etc.). I don't know a SINGLE person who goes to YouTube to watch copyrighted works. AND all it takes is a simple take-down notice to remove something from YouTube. The persons submitting the take-down is always assumed correct unless the poster of the content objects, so its definitely in the copyright holders favor.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 4:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would I go to a piece of crap service like YouTube for copyrighted works?
I don't know why YOU would or wouldn't. But most Youtubers are going there for copyrighted works, not to see some random goob doing a piss-poor job playing his ukulele.

Play dumb all you want, but there isn't a single movie, video, or song made in the past 20 years that isn't on Youtube all or in part.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By Solandri on 12/5/2008 4:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
I suggest you go to YouTube and click on the "most viewed" link. Most of the videos in the all-time list are home-made. There are a smattering of music videos which I assume are condoned by the copyright owners since it's trivial to send YouTube a DMCA takedown notice.

The only commercially copyrighted content I've watched on YouTube is the occasional music video, old TV commercials, and 60 second snippets of recent TV shows (short enough that it probably falls under fair use). The vast majority of the stuff my friends direct me to on YouTube is home-made and freely distributed by the creator - diet coke and menthos, iPods being blended, piss-poor ukulele playing, etc. I find it a great resource for helping me explain things which are difficult to describe in words, like when my dad asked me how a plane's thurst reverser works.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 4:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you're not aware that Youtube filters the "most viewed" links to only point to non copyrighted material.

Why not take my Pepsi challenge? Try to find even one copyrighted movie or video that ISN'T on Youtube right now.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By foolsgambit11 on 12/5/2008 8:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, can you find that Saturday Night Live sketch of the Vaudeville performers who make fun of ethnic groups - "I eat babies, I drink pee, I must be French, French, French!"

Because I can't find it anywhere.

Take my Pepsi(tm, c, whatever) Challenge.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 9:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
I said movies or videos, not TV shows. But as far as SNL goes, I did find 11,700 hits. Most of them copyrighted material:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=saturd...

You lose.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By rdeegvainl on 12/5/2008 10:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
you do know that tv shows ARE videos, don't you?


RE: Google Does Steal.
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 10:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
music videos. Sorry if the context wasnt clear.

But nice job of ignoring the point that thousands of SNL clips are all over Youtube. Want to try some OTHER 'video' ?


RE: Google Does Steal.
By foolsgambit11 on 12/6/2008 3:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I was ignoring your point. I was trying to pop your little hyperbole bubble. There's no doubt that there's plenty of copyright content on YouTube. There's also no doubt that all of the copyright holders have effective legal recourse through the DMCA to get YouTube to take that content down, if they so wish. The vast amount of copyrighted content that is present, I would argue, is implicit consent by the copyright holders to the use of their IP. At the very least, it shows that they feel the value of that property is less than the cost of paying somebody to find content and send out take-down notices. If, for instance, Warner Bros. doesn't feel it's worth even $50,000 a year to protect their millions of pieces of IP, that says something about the 'true worth' of their material.

But I was genuinely interested in finding that video clip.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By foolsgambit11 on 12/5/2008 8:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. What everybody else said. But additionally, that's not stealing. First off, trafficking in stolen goods isn't stealing. The person who actually deprives another of their legal property is the one who steals. Secondarily, despite what you may have seen before your most recent movie rental ('you wouldn't steal a car...'), copyright violation isn't theft. To steal, you have to actually deprive someone of property. It doesn't count to deprive someone of a right (such as a 'copy'-right). It has to be property, and they have to lose possession of it. The copyright holder still has possession of all their property. They've lost potential income from their copyright holdings, sure, but that's not theft, either. And thirdly, their obligations and rights under the law with respect to copyrights are laid out in the DMCA, which they comply with. So quit your libel. (Oh, do you need a definition of that, too?)


RE: Google Does Steal.
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 9:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But additionally, that's not stealing.
Hey, I agree. Personally, I think the guy's study is full of crap. But I don't a reporter force-feeding his own opinion on me.

Just the facts, ma'am. Let the reader take it from there.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By Neutrion on 12/8/2008 5:43:12 AM , Rating: 2
Okokok I do agree with about 98% of your points. Don't go misreading me, but it seems like the income that would be realized would not go to the copyright holder. Now, if a person never recieves what they should, isn't that an issue?

Full disclosure: I'm only representing this side of the equation since I just got out of ethics class of the same topic. And the kazookeylele rocks. 'Nuff said.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By MadMan007 on 12/8/2008 8:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
You're right, but it's still copyright violation which isn't legal. People call it 'stealing' all the time for shorthand or rhetorical effect but when people sidetrack the issue by defining copyright violation vs stealing it's just a smokescreen that misses the point - it's still breaking a law.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By foolsgambit11 on 12/8/2008 8:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I don't mean it as a smokescreen. I'm just a stickler for precision.

There's no doubt that the unrealized income due to copyright violation is a problem. But it's also much harder to determine than the losses from theft. It's more like determining compensation in a malpractice suit or something similar - say someone receives a debilitating injury, how do you determine the wages someone will forfeit for the rest of their life? How do you determine damages?

Not only that, but IP is decidedly not fungible. Each song, or movie, or whatever, has different potential lost revenues/potential future lost revenues. It's a sticky wicket. The cost of court time debating the value of people viewing a Nelson music video, or a My Two Dads episode, on YouTube would probably exceed the damages incurred. A waste of the justice system's time.

These are all issues with copyright violation that aren't issues with theft. And it's important to keep crimes clear. After all, to be hyperbolic, watching a rerun of Mr. Belvedere online is not statutory rape. Nor is it murder. Nor is it speeding. Nor is it theft. It is copyright violation.


RE: Google Does Steal.
By Smilin on 12/8/08, Rating: 0
Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By porkpie on 12/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By Bateluer on 12/5/2008 12:16:17 PM , Rating: 3
I thought the article was an editorial, and therefore an opinion based on a news event?


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By porkpie on 12/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By mydogfarted on 12/5/2008 2:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
Funny... right near the picture is says "Jason Mick (blog)"


By whiskerwill on 12/5/2008 2:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
Thats a link to his blog, it doesn't mean this is a blog itself.


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By GeorgeH on 12/5/2008 1:11:29 PM , Rating: 1
If you want to dislike Mick, great. If you want to complain about some of his more "controversial" pieces, fine. When you post stuff like this, though, you should be aware that your attack comes across as less of a cry for "journalistic integrity" than it does as a reaching ad hominem attack.

Pulls no punches - clearly prefaced by the phrases "is known" and "leads some"

Divisive piece - Cleland's self-admitted goal/job is to be divisive

Drop in the bucket/large bandwidth - Possible opinion, yes, but it's used as framing for Cleland's claim (i.e. the "other side's" viewpoint) and its paragraph clearly contains the word "likely"

I could go on, but - judging from this story/response alone - I would have to say that most of any "problem" with Mick lies with your reading comprehension, and not Mick's journalism. With supporters like you, the anti-Mick brigade doesn't need any enemies.


By porkpie on 12/5/2008 1:37:30 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Cleland's self-admitted goal/job is to be divisive
BS. His self-admitted goal is to fight Net Neutrality. Mick calls his attack blog "divisive" and "evil" because he's partially funded by telcos. But an attack blog ENTIRELY funded by Google he compliments as "fiery". Opinion.

quote:
Possible opinion, yes, but it's used as framing for Cleland's claim (i.e. the "other side's" viewpoint)
Your reading comprehension needs some serious work. It is opinion yes, but its not supporting Cleland's side. Mick is trying to make the point that Youtube's low-quality streams are insignificant compared to things like iTunes.

There's lot's more opinion in this so-called "news" story. Like: "Cleland insists that there's nothing wrong with the industry paying him to attack Google" Cleland runs an organization that gets funding to fight Net Neutrality. No one sends him a check for his personal blog postings about Google.

quote:
And its paragraph clearly contains the word "likely"
Meaning its just a guess Mick wants to throw out, not a fact.

quote:
clearly prefaced by the phrases "is known" and "leads some"
You're reading a different article than I am, I guess. And it's still an opinion, not a fact.


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By omnicronx on 12/5/2008 1:33:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
when it comes to important issues or people it feels are evil-doers, Google pulls no punches.
Not really, this is pretty much a well known attitude of Google, and based on previous actions, I think its safe to say this is not merely opinion but an inference.
quote:
who had written a divisive piece
Huh? how is this not divisive? definition: tending to cause disagreement, I guess google lashing back is a matter of opinion too?
quote:
low-quality video streams are only a drop in the bucket in comparison
Not opinion once again, flash compressed video takes up a fraction of the bandwidth when compared to other common downloads on the internet. In fact one mp3 on itunes can be the equivalent of 3-4 short youtube videos. As this is a technology website, I don't think he should have to explain the obvious.
quote:
but it likely uses no more than other large bandwidth users
Inference based on fact and common knowledge, not opinion.
quote:
This leads some to suspect that Google is a push-over.
Finally, we reach an actually opinion.

Go read your morning news paper other than the times and tell me most of the articles are not partially based on opinion. In fact each media outlet has their own opinion on different subjects. Take Fox for example, who has obvious right wing views, or that ABC is a well known for its left wing (ish) views.


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 1:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
flash compressed video takes up a fraction of the bandwidth when compared to other common downloads on the internet. In fact one mp3 on itunes can be the equivalent of 3-4 short youtube videos.
I guess I have to explain to you that a "short youtube video" with 4 million views is a LOT more bandwidth than an mp3 downloaded by just 100K people. Youtube is NOT a drop in the bucket in total traffic bandwidth. In fact, Youtube was 10% of all Internet traffic all by itself. And that was over a year ago, it's probably much higher now:

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/06/19/youtu...


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By barjebus on 12/5/2008 3:25:34 PM , Rating: 5
You're missing the point pork face. What google is saying is that the content is serves up is smaller than most other content services out there like iTunes. Its saying that they shouldn't be punished just because what they serve up is popular, rather that larger files that get distributed over the net (iTunes, HD movies, whole TV episodes) are worse offenders for providing content that is larger on a per unit basis.

Apple pulls in 1.2 billion dollars off iTunes every year, thats a billion mp3's, which translates easily into around 4 petabytes of data every year assuming that all that money is songs. Which doesn't even tell the whole story since video downloads are only a few dollars but are many many times as large as if we assume its pure audio.

Now, thats one service...I'm sure there's tons of other examples out there (why aren't they cracking down on Windows Updates? Millions of computers downloading a few megabytes each every Tuesday? Or how about the next Ubuntu distro).

I'm just going to come right out and say your argument is stupid. These providers make money by people _not_ using the commodity they offer, which is bandwidth. It's a stupid business model, and just because Google provides a service that breaks your silly business model doesn't mean they're evil, it means those telecom industry needs to adapt and stop overselling their networks.


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By porkpie on 12/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By omnicronx on 12/5/2008 5:27:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Which is one fifth of what Google does in ONE SINGLE DAY. So much for your argument.
source? Google doesnt release this information, I have seen estimates but nothing more, and nothing nearly as high as what you are saying.

I do agree Google does transfer huge amounts of data per year, but making up facts does not help your case.

I have seen sites such as this one (below) estimating total youtube usage at 25PB a month(based on 100 million hits a day, and if everyone watches a 3:30 minute video, which I believe to be too high). if 10% of the internet bandwidth comes from youtube and 16% comes from google (so 10% youtube, 6% for the rest of google) then 40PB a month total transfer is not out of reach for google. That being said, it is a far cry from 20PB a day like what you are claiming.

http://willy.boerland.com/myblog/youtube_bandwidth...

I can pretty much guarentee you that google does not use 7300PB of bandwidth every year, its just not possible.


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 5:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
making up facts does not help your case.
You're way out of line. Google for "Google petabytes" and you'll find a bunch of estimates that put them at around 20 PB/day. Here's just a couple:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petabyte
http://highscalability.com/paper-mapreduce-simplif...


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By caqde on 12/5/2008 6:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
Each of your sources says process not transfer. There is a big difference. Process is the act of executing/manipulating data. This has nothing to do with the data you receive. Just because google processes 20PB doesn't mean they sent or received 20PB of data. Heck I could process 20PB of data and not even connect to the internet to do so. Heck I don't even need 20PB of HardDrive space.

Just so you understand I could download 1Kb from the internet and turn that into Megabytes of data Processing and only end up uploading a small amount of data (say 150Kb).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_(computing)


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By omnicronx on 12/5/2008 8:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
Haha I was about to say the exact same thing.

For reference just look at how much space all the photos on facebook take up Facebook has just over 1 petabyte of users' photos stored, translating into roughly 10 billion photos.

I wonder if he is really implying that youtube has outgoing transfers that roughly equates to 20 times the space of 10 billion photos, thats just not being realistic.


By omnicronx on 12/5/2008 8:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder if he is really implying that youtube has outgoing transfers that roughly equates to 20 times the space of 10 billion photos, thats just not being realistic.
A day.. if I was not being clear


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 8:24:40 PM , Rating: 1
You're right, I misread that. But my point is still valid. Mick's statement that Youtube is a "drop in the bucket" is just plain wrong.


By DigitalFreak on 12/5/2008 9:42:45 PM , Rating: 1
Your bullshit is boring me now.

Next


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By inighthawki on 12/5/2008 9:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
No offense, but you just sound dumb, you are making assumptions that have absolutely NO proof or evidence to back things up, yet making claims that others are wrong because they don't have figures either.


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 9:45:09 PM , Rating: 1
WTF are you talking about? I backed up my claim that Youtube is 10% of all Internet traffic. Need the link again?


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By inighthawki on 12/5/2008 10:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
Whats funny is ive looked over all of your posts, yet you seem to be playing ball by yourself against a bunch of other people who know what they're talking about, but im sure you know better than all of them, but anyways...

Can you supply me figures to high quality streams such as itunes to compare with youtube? Because so far, even at 10%, thats a pretty small amount.


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 10:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you seem to be playing ball by yourself against a bunch of other people who know what they're talking about
If by "other people" you mean the ones saying "well since youtube videos are so small the company can't possibly use much bandwidth!" then no, they don't know what they're talking about.

quote:
so far, even at 10%, thats a pretty small amount.
Lol, are you serious? 10% of the entire internet? From ONE site? And that's small to you?

My god, I AM in an alternate universe, populated by incredible shrinking brains.


By inighthawki on 12/6/2008 3:08:21 AM , Rating: 2
By other people i mean, all the other people u are arguing against throughout the whole comments section. Basically ctrl+f ur name and go on through the whole way down.

Also, 10% is relatively small. For one website, well yeah its a lot if u compare it to the sheer amount of utterly worthless websites out there. It depends on your perspective of size, because to me, 1 of 10 is close to nothing at all, clearly your thinking of it in total size, rather than a "ratio".

You really need to cut out the "everyone is dumber than me" attitude, because you sound mad, not to mention like a joke.


By omnicronx on 12/5/2008 5:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
I fully understand, and although I should not have agreed with the statement of youtube is a drop in the bucket, I do believe that other sites and providers use just as much bandwidth. Recent studies for example have shown that Facebook also accounts for around 10% of bandwidth. Video streaming at around 3% which is bound to rise dramatically very soon, and P2P still accounts for the majority of bandwidth at 35%. Its not a drop in the bucket, but its not nearly as much as you and the anti google article made it out to be.

I also feel that this number of 10% can only go down, with other rich content services starting to gain traction (such as video streaming). Youtube is great, but its not like we are going to see that much HD and high rez content anytime soon. The source video for most content on youtube is poor at best, mainly coming from sell phones and cheap video cameras. Just because you can upload HD content, does not mean the majority of people will. In contrast, I think this is where video streaming is headed.


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By zinfamous on 12/5/2008 6:01:52 PM , Rating: 1
wow. why are you a member of a tech forum if you so easily miss this one?

highly compressed you-tube videos are no comparison to the size of HD streams, bandwidth requirements as mentioned.

If you don't understand this concept, I don't know what to do for you.


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 6:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you don't understand this concept, I don't know what to do for you.
A 1 meg file downloaded 1000 times takes more bandwidth than a 500 meg file downloaded once.

If you don't understand this concept, I don't know what to do for you. Maybe put down the bong and step away from the keyboard?


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By plonk420 on 12/5/2008 7:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
please explain how if "youtube consumes 10% of internet traffic" and "bittorrent consumes 35%(+) of internet traffic", how there's a difference in a 1 meg (more like 2-4 .. or 10+ if it's song length) file being downloaded 1000 times vs 200-700mb being downloaded once?

google/youtube at LEAST is homed around the world unlike 5-10 million US bittorrent users peering from here to Poland, Finland, South Korea and Japan...


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 8:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, I feel like I'm in some kind of alternate dimension. Read my last post again, this time slowly.

The 1000X thing was just an example, to show how the OP was leaving out the out the most important factor: : how MANY TIMES Youtube videos are downloaded. The fact that they're much smaller than a high quality movie doesn't matter. Youtube is NOT a "drop in the bucket" when it comes to total Internet usage.

Get it now?


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By DigitalFreak on 12/5/2008 9:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
Cleland, is that you? Still don't have the balls to post under your own name I see.


By porkpie on 12/5/2008 9:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
Larry Craig, is that you?


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By plonk420 on 12/5/2008 11:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
well, unless things have changed, Google didn't own any backbones. as long as they pay their bill for peering, i see no reason why they should have any responsibility beyond that. as long as they are not using the internet in a way that BREAKS it, it should fully be up to the backbone providers to say "things are ok" or not and to maintain. i see NO input from them in TFA (which i just now skimmed).


By porkpie on 12/5/2008 11:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By plonk420 on 12/5/2008 5:02:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
quote:
low-quality video streams are only a drop in the bucket in comparison
Opinion


DUMBASS

let's take a look at a video uploaded to Youtube. Simian Mobile Disco - Hustler. it is 329kbps. now go download your favorite movie. if it's ILLEGAL, it's a MINIMUM 930kbps. MAXIMUM, it's 1842kbps (look up Tdx2005.gif on wikipedia). ABC.com was 2mbps last i checked. Netflix ranges from 1.2 to 2.2mbps according to my GOOGLE search.

OK, thank you, try again. (i may be covering just ONE of your points, but that's all i care to as video compression is all i care about)


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 5:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i may be covering just ONE of your points
And you blew that one totally. The concept that bandwidth is not just the size of the content, but HOW OFTEN it gets downloaded seems to be totally beyond your intellectual powers.

Look at the link I posted earlier, which shows Youtube being 10% of all Internet traffic all by itself. That clear enough for you? The article even uses small words.

Mick was not only stating opinion, he was stating an opinion that was WRONG. Youtube isn't a "drop in the bucket".


By plonk420 on 12/5/2008 6:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
and bittorrent is "half" of internet traffic... (or at least 35% .. as of 2004). i'm guessing at LEAST half of that, if not 2/3 of that is video. and there's little to no caching with BT, either.


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By zinfamous on 12/5/2008 5:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
porkpie:

Your post does nothing to support whatever point you're trying to make. In fact, it simply shows that you have a rather limited ability for textual analysis.

...how is labeling an article "divisive" construed as opinionated subtext when that is the primary intent of the article in question?


RE: Ever hear of journalistic integrity?
By porkpie on 12/5/2008 6:51:24 PM , Rating: 1
Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? Unless the author explicitly states his intent, any guesses about it are just other people's opinions.

If you can't figure this out, then it's you who has a "rather limited ability for textual analysis". Either that, or you're unclear on what the words "intent" and "opinion" really mean.


By foolsgambit11 on 12/5/2008 8:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
The author's intent isn't necessary to determine if it was divisive. You can evaluate the results of his posting/article, whatever it was.

Reminds me of what a Rabbi I once talked to said about the difference between Christian and Jewish morals. For Jews, it's about what you do - follow the mitzvot. For Christians, it's also important what you think - don't have impure thoughts, etc. Sorry, this paragraph has no bearing on the article or post....


By foolsgambit11 on 12/5/2008 8:33:45 PM , Rating: 3
>>when it comes to important issues or people it feels are evil-doers, Google pulls no punches.
>Opinion.

I'm assuming the 'opinion' part is Mick's evaluation of what makes an 'important' issue? Because that's the only part that is opinion in that statement. The rest uses a colorful colloquialism, but is still an objective statement. Is it true or false that, when Google feels someone or something is an evil-doer, it pulls no punches? That can be evaluated as true or false, and is therefore not opinion.

>>who had written a divisive piece
>Opinion.
Again, not opinion. Colorful language.

>>...drop in the bucket...
>Opinion.
Once again, this is an objective statement - it can be evaluated as true or false. Therefore, not opinion. It's becoming clear that your issue with the writing is not that any specific phrase is opinion or not, but that the overall structuring and choice of language clearly demonstrates the author's bias.

The question of opinion is, "Is Google good?" And the subtext of Mick's article here is that he is attempting to use facts to begin to answer that moral question. But it's subtext, not text. The text is full of natural language statements which have truth values, so to speak.

In the end, just give it up. You should trust the DailyTech readership. They generally have good critical reading skills, and can pick up bias (you can't spell bias without 'b' 's'). They don't need you to try to point it out.


By eye smite on 12/5/2008 9:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I'm repeating other people when I say you missed at least one of the points. You got the part about it ALL being opinions. However this guy is slandering and misinforming or misleading people with his diatribe about google. Naturally google is going to defend themselves against someone who is paid to slander them. Big Business is all just a game anyway and 9 out of 10 times execs look at the general populace as sheep anyway so what does it matter? lol


If there is one thing I learned about business...
By JonnyDough on 12/5/08, Rating: -1
By masher2 (blog) on 12/5/2008 4:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "you can't be a big corporation and not be evil"

This statement is wrong-headed on so many levels its truly frightening. The corporation is truly one of the most important inventions of the last 200 years, and responsible in large part for the wealth and standard of living we enjoy today. Thanks to the corporation, not only can major business undertakings be financed and executed efficiency, but most Americans can easily participate in the profits, by buying publicly-traded shares.

> "Wal-mart alone has put thousands of small businesses out of business"

Wal-Mart never put a single store out of business. Their own customers did, by freely choosing to shop at Wal-Mart, which gave them more selection and lower prices.

Have you even been inside a small mom-and-pop grocery or hardware store? Have you ever seen the prices they charge? Wal-Mart operates on under a 4% profit margin. Many of those mom-and-pops you praise had markups of 100% or more.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2008 12:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If more people received wages they earned, rather than what businesses give them, then more people can live more luxurious, while putting more money into the people's hands to buy more. 1% of our population doesn't need 90% of the money.
Your error is the assumption that the mega-rich in our nation got there from wages. They did not. Corporate CEOs make make tens of millions...but the people who control billions got rich by investing in or otherwise owning assets (or by inheriting from those who did).

More to the point, the salaries of those CEOs are being paid by the investors who own those companies. They don't tell you how to spend your money. Why should you tell them how to spend theirs?


By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2008 9:44:29 AM , Rating: 2
Capitalism is what made the " good old days " great as well. You do realize that don't you ?

I'm not gonna label you a hippie. And Masher hasn't either. You just sound like .. well, me, 15 or so years ago. You'll grow up one day and look back and think " man.. was I an idiot back then ". Don't worry, we all go through it :D

quote:
Thanks to mega corporations


Mega corperations are the PRODUCERS of our economy. What are you even talking about ?

So its a wide sight calling you hippies, but its fine for you to label anyone successful " evil " who watches people starve while they collect an undeserved wage. Is that right ?

Just grow up kid.


By JonnyDough on 12/7/2008 12:09:56 PM , Rating: 1
It's pretty simple, corporate loopholes are designed to favor the rich. In fact, we're a debt society. EVERYTHING is designed to favor the rich. We're born into debt slavery. The land is rich, but the few that control it via politics and wealth prefer that we're born indebted. We have to borrow money from birth to survive, for school, for housing, for our first car, etc. Yet there is plenty enough land and food here in America to not have to do that. I've been called a hippie many times before even though all I do is present alternative ways of thinking about life. Anyone not siding with Masher is usually insulted. It's his ethnocentric and egotism poking through at every turn. ("oh no he dint!") Yes Masher, I did just say that.

You want to argue in favor of capitalism, that's understandable. Both sides have valid points. But please don't insult me or speculate as to my age. That makes you seem really immature and therefore your own age is negligible to the argument. Perhaps you need to mature up and learn how to debate without stooping to unrelated tactics, however old you actually are.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2008 12:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "EVERYTHING is designed to favor the rich"

You mean, like tax laws that require 5% of the population to pay 90% of the tax burden, whereas nearly half of all people pay no tax at all?

With "favors" like that, who needs enemies?


By joey2264 on 12/7/2008 4:23:15 PM , Rating: 1
You don't really believe this, do you? You do know that among the very small percentage of the population that doesn't pay income taxes, they usually still pay sales taxes, state taxes, etc., which amount to a very large proportion of their income. And it is absolutely not true that the top 5% pay 90% of the taxes. Where do you get your figures, the RNC?


By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2008 4:42:59 PM , Rating: 1
In 2006, the top 5% paid just over 60% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50% paid less than 3% of the tax burden:

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

The bottom third actually *received* money from the federal government, in the form of EIC payments, food stamps, welfare, etc.

For areas with highly progressive state and local taxes, the break is even more severe.

> "they usually still pay sales taxes, state taxes, etc., which amount to a very large proportion of their income"

Eh? Taxes in most states are at least as progressive as federal-- nine states have no income tax at all, except in general for high-income individuals who receive dividends or other payments.

As for sales tax, this normally ranges from 4-12%, which means you can't spend more than that percentage of your income on it. The idea that any low-income person is "paying a very large portion" of their income as taxes is flatly incorrect.


By inighthawki on 12/7/2008 8:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
I guess we all forgot that if you have more money, you pay more tax, of course they would pay the majority. You cant tax a person with $1000 to their name for $1 million. If you take a pretty average working American, the kind of person who makes up the majority of the country, it would takes hundreds, if not thousands of these people's tax money to equate to that single "mega"-corporation.


By JonnyDough on 12/12/2008 11:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
Do a little research for once Masher. Corporations dodge taxation like Superman dodges bullets.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2008 12:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
EVERYTHING is designed to favor the rich.


You know, I'm not a rich man. But I REALLY am getting sick of your class warfare strategy and idiotic opinions.

Worse, if people like you get their way, I will never be a rich man. I will have nothing left to aspire to. And nobody else will either.

Jonny, I don't WANT to live like the Amish. Ok ? I don't want " communal living ". I want my slice of the American dream, and I'm going to keep working at it. And one day, I hope to have a family. Do you honestly expect me to look them in the eye and say tell them to just give up on making anything of themselves because its " evil " ?

I'm sorry if you have given up on life and yourself. The rest of us have goals, and hopes, and dreams. And who the hell are you to tell us, or a rich man, that its wrong ?

quote:
I've been called a hippie many times before even though all I do is present alternative ways of thinking about life.


Anyone can sit around, roll a doobie, and think up crap. Good for you. Try, for once, being a realist.


By JonnyDough on 12/10/2008 2:46:21 AM , Rating: 2
On another article you called me a "kid" and insulted me. Now you're talking about "having a family someday." My daughter is six next month.

I have never and probably will never smoke pot. Quit ASSuming that I do. We all have to make a life reclaimer, but some of us actually see the world in shades of gray with a conscience.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2008 2:05:47 AM , Rating: 3
> "they use strong arm tactics to demand lower cost items from vendors/manufactures"

Those strong arm tactics translate into lower prices. That in turn helps their customers. I want every company I do business with to "strong arm" their suppliers, in order to offer me a lower price.

If everyone truly loved mom and pop stores so much, none would ever go out of business. But the truth is, people prefer low prices and large product selections. If you agree with democracy, then you have to agree with Wal Mart. It exists because of tens of millions of consumers all voting with their wallets.

More importantly, the money consumers save by shopping at conglomerates like Wal Mart translates to a massive boost for the economy. Rather than keeping afloat tens of thousands of less efficient small shops -- shops that use much more labor and resources to distribute and sell their goods -- consumers have billions of extra dollars to spend on other products.

The Wal Mart model is more efficient. The death of tiny retailers was a good thing for America. Bringing them back would be like returning to handmade clothing or the horse and buggy.

> "Your 100% markup you quote is so grossly inaccurate it's scary"

If you think so, then you've never shopped at a truly tiny retailer before. There aren't many of them left today, except in very remote rural areas. But in the 1960s and 70s they were much more common...and many did have markups of 100% or even more.

> "what does consumer get for what is agreeably a higher price? far better customer service "

Again if peope truly preferred "better service" to a lower price, those mom and pop shops would all still be around today.


By William Gaatjes on 12/7/2008 6:04:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If everyone truly loved mom and pop stores so much, none would ever go out of business. But the truth is, people prefer low prices and large product selections. If you agree with democracy, then you have to agree with Wal Mart. It exists because of tens of millions of consumers all voting with their wallets.


Interesting, let's try to pull this apart in a hypothetical scenario.
Why is wallmart cheaper then the local shop ?
One example is that they buy in very large quantities.
Because they buy in large quantities wallmart receives discounts from the manufacturer. These discounts are used to maximize profit while keeping prices low. Because there are several manufacturers there is competition that also lowers the price for hardware wallmart purchases and reselles to the end customer. And these manufacturers want wallmart as a customer cause wallmart is ubiquitous meaning a minimum but large number of hardware will be sold. Prognoses 101.

A solution could be to keep the small local shops alive but let them carry the wallmart brand name. They would be no longer a truly seperate entity and be part of the wallmart chain. In practice this means the local shop pay for the name but because of the discounts received while being a wallmart reseller, it is still more profitable to carry the wallmart brand. The local shop takes care of local storage space ,taxes, and bills. Wallmart does the distribution.
Therefore the wallmart part would just be supplier with huge warehouses to the local shops. The local shops buy from wallmart since wallmart buys in large quantities creating the cheaper prices an because of the brand name.
The local shops also agree to take a minimum amount of hardware of wallmarts hands to make sure wallmart does not build up excessive stock and losses money.

For the local shops who want to stay seperate, they have to agree to the free market principle of competition. If another want's to start as a wallmart shop, well that's the free market. If another wallmart shop opens in the town there is nothing they can do about it.

There is only one problem. When wallmart is the only supplier left, the prices will start to rise because there is no competition anymore. This is always the case. Prices start low and when there is no more competion, the prices start to rise with various excuses. However, there is nothing wrong with other people becoming another "wallmart" while using the same principle. What we need is a certain point of view to do business. To keep everybody happy we need to share a little wealth. In reality this mean wallmart would still have the biggest wallet but local shops will still exist with their experienced and driven owners helping customers. These local shops are free to grow as large as they like giving the owners to create wealth too nd hire more employees.

You can put this in an equation. The problem is the variable greed... It appears many times (once for every person in the equation).


By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2008 12:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
> "A solution could be to keep the small local shops alive but let them carry the wallmart brand name. "

Oops - you're forgetting that Wal-Mart isn't simply cheaper because it buys in bulk. It experiences economies of scale at every step in the chain. Distribution-- products are shipped to a few large centers, rather than ten times as many small stores. Sales-- the labor hours per product sold in a massive megastore is less than half what it is in a tiny mom-and-pop.

Furthermore, one large store uses less land, energy, and resources than ten smaller stores...especially when those ten smaller locations will have significant product overlap. It's simply a more efficient business model-- something that can't be duplicated just by hanging the Wal-Mart logo on every store in the country.

> "When wallmart is the only supplier left, the prices will start to rise because there is no competition anymore"

If prices rise, then competitors gain market share, and new competitors rush to take advantage of fat profits. This is the reality of what "always happens". A company can keep a natural monopoly only by keeping prices below what anyone else could offer, which is good for the consumer.


By William Gaatjes on 12/7/2008 1:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oops - you're forgetting that Wal-Mart isn't simply cheaper because it buys in bulk. It experiences economies of scale at every step in the chain. Distribution-- products are shipped to a few large centers, rather than ten times as many small stores. Sales-- the labor hours per product sold in a massive megastore is less than half what it is in a tiny mom-and-pop.

Furthermore, one large store uses less land, energy, and resources than ten smaller stores...especially when those ten smaller locations will have significant product overlap. It's simply a more efficient business model-- something that can't be duplicated just by hanging the Wal-Mart logo on every store in the country.


I agree. Most of what you described still works in my scenario. Let's adjust my scenario from my former post.
The end solution would be to turn that megastore into a virtually divided sections where local shopowners still do the work : Being a passionate sales figure.
Give all the local shop owners who want to participate a part of that megastore. Since it is their passion they will be better salesmen or saleswomen then somebody who is forced to work at wallmart. This because they still feel responsibility to their shop and their customers. The end result will still be happy customers and better service.

quote:
If prices rise, then competitors gain market share, and new competitors rush to take advantage of fat profits. This is the reality of what "always happens". A company can keep a natural monopoly only by keeping prices below what anyone else could offer, which is good for the consumer.


This only works in ideal situations i am sad to say. The Intel deal about price cutswith the big oem's when not selling AMD comes to mind for example when thinking of reality. And when the reseller is also the inventer of the product, this product will be heavily patented and may not be copied by competition. Example : Software industy.


By William Gaatjes on 12/7/2008 1:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If prices rise, then competitors gain market share, and new competitors rush to take advantage of fat profits. This is the reality of what "always happens". A company can keep a natural monopoly only by keeping prices below what anyone else could offer, which is good for the consumer.


Another example is the airplane industry. Millions and billions are made with solutions that are not millions or billions worth. Example, an ordinary plastic button that costs 200 dollars a piece because company X is the only one that makes this button and company X patented this button. Nothing special, just a button that ages as any button. No special material, no special design.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2008 12:37:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "Lower price for consumers = lower paycheck for consumers."

No, because only a tiny fraction of the population actually works for Wal-Mart. And, even for those that do, many of them receive more in salary than they would running a tiny, inefficient mom-and-pop. A Wal-Mart store manager, purchasing agent, or marketing executive receives far, far more than minimum wage.

> "I thought our anti-trust laws were supposed to protect small businesses and competition?... "

Anti-trust legislation exists to protect competition-- not competitors. That's a nuance which escapes many people. A business which can't compete doesn't get a free-pass...it's simply protected against unfair tactics.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2008 9:53:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wal-Mart has put many small businesses under,


Simply by existing ? Can you find me one example of Wal-Mart burning other stores down. Or engaging in espionage against small businesses. One ?

quote:
they under pay their work force and provide little to no benefits to their hourly workers.


So why do people work there ? I've never seen a Wal-Mart with a Help Wanted sign. They appear to NEVER have a problem finding employees.

Nowhere in your ranting do I see CHOICE being brought into the argument. People CHOOSE to buy there. People CHOOSE to work there. And despite your claims that Wal-Mart is somehow destroying businesses and lives, you can't ignore the fact that its a CHOICE people are making.

Don't blame Wal-Mart, blame me. Because I rather go to one place, and pay less, then go to 4 or 5 local shops. Taking more of my time, and probably more of my money.


By JonnyDough on 12/6/2008 7:07:51 PM , Rating: 1
Oh yes, life is so much better working for $7 an hour on your feet all day with your kid in daycare instead of spending it working alongside your son in a small store you own.

Best inventions? Laugh! What wealth are you referring to? 12% foreclosure in Michigan? People starving here in America? Welfare and robbing the rich to pay for the poor? Maybe you were talking about Ford and GM? My, aren't we wealthy? It's easy to focus on the 1990's but unfortunately we live in a world that relies on your super invention...and anyone who understands economics knows that it all has to eventually come crashing down. Small business handles change better. Local economies survive. What happens to local economy when say...two huge Detroit automakers close shop? Oh yeah, what a wonderful invention. People losing their houses to banks. My aren't we wealthy here in Michigan now? Thank you for mega corporations!


By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2008 9:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
Michigan has been run into the ground by 50+ years of Liberal "leaders" and city planners. Blaming big business for its faults is shortsighted and ignorant.

quote:
.two huge Detroit automakers close shop? Oh yeah, what a wonderful invention. People losing their houses to banks. My aren't we wealthy here in Michigan now? Thank you for mega corporations!


You weren't complaining when the big 3 had your economy booming though were you ? Which brings us to..

quote:
.and anyone who understands economics knows that it all has to eventually come crashing down.


You appear to be at odds with your own beliefs then, aren't you.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/2008 10:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
Jonny I don't think you have learned one damn thing about business based on this ignorant rant.


By JonnyDough on 12/6/2008 7:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
Think outside the box, step outside of your capitalistic environment/way of life. Examine things a bit deeper and you'll see what I do. Study the ancient eastern world for a good start. A time before ownership, selfishness, greed and blood lust. Is it too late to save humanity and teach our children differently? If I could open the eyes of just a few, maybe it might make some difference. But capitalism and greed is being taught to every born child, and it will likely continue long into the future. Unfortunately, nobody today is truly taught to share. Our society is not really a giving or a sharing society, despite what dollar amounts giving by charity and the U.S. government say.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2008 10:02:15 AM , Rating: 2
Uhhh yeah. So uh, how much weed do you smoke on a daily basis ? Just curious.


By JonnyDough on 12/8/2008 2:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
There you go making assumptions again. I won't even take ibuprofen for a headache unless I'm losing my mind. I have never done any drugs in my life. Take your idiotic assumptions and throw yourself out the window.


RE: If there is one thing I learned about business...
By Shmak on 12/6/2008 12:39:43 PM , Rating: 1
Even if your ridiculous point actually had an element of truth, the underlying statement is that somebody else knows what is better for me and my family, which is absurd. Its amazing that so many people feel that kindergarden person to person ethics apply to global economics. Not to mention eugenics? Come on.

Here is the fundamental problem with your argument: MOTIVATION. In a "sharing" system, you will never find a person who strives to achieve, surpass expectations, and improve themselves, because there is no reason to do so. Socialism simply removes the exceptional people that actually make progress and glorifies the under-achievers and the status quo.

Its people like this I just can't understand. Grow up and realize how dependent humanity is on all the things that we have built. Communism and socialism failed to produce utopic societies; they produced quite the opposite. The system we have here (while far from perfect) has produced results.


By JonnyDough on 12/6/2008 7:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but you need to study the Amish. In their communities, giving is gratified. They give for acknowledgment and a place in heaven, not for monetary profit.

The fundamental problem with your argument is a lack of understanding of non-capital society. You believe that MONEY is the only thing that can motivate people. Study Maslow's Hierarchy of needs and take a management class that teaches how to motivate people. Monetary gain is only ONE way to motivate, and my classes and experience have taught me that it's actually one of the worst and least motivating factors.

Why do "you people" (pro-capitalists, the rich?) always want to argue and label with communism and socialism?

There are alternatives to these governmental structures and labels. Community living, self government, etc...true democracy can exist, but in America it quickly became perverted by greed. We now live in an oligarchy. Socialism is perhaps in many ways better than an oligarchy.

What I'm talking about is communal living. Sharing of resources, and bartering. Even the Bible and Torah warn against monetary systems. Not that I am religious at all, I'm not.

Grow up and realize that change is needed, and that a better way of life, a more equitable and progressive system is possible. Quit being a product of your environment and stop believing in a system which benefits few people long term, and glorifies the wealthy. Unless of course you truly are a selfish greedy bastard who wants only to be glorified as a God among many. You are human, and no better than anyone else - despite what your bank statement may say.

The belief in capitalism dates back to FEUDALISM. Feudalism is all about Kings and nobility announcing their importance and dominance over the common and weak-minded peasants. Self-elected leaders. Our modern society is still based on these ideals. It's the reason we appropriate and worship Hollywood stars and elected officials. We actually think that they're better than us because they're richer and educated. You can talk to any history major, or just watch the History channel long enough to learn all this.


By William Gaatjes on 12/7/2008 6:49:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fundamental problem with your argument is a lack of understanding of non-capital society. You believe that MONEY is the only thing that can motivate people.


The problem here is that the motivation for life is not the same for everybody. The Genetic dice make sure people behave differently even when everybody grows up in the same way. This is a good part of life but it can be a problem in human sociëty. Most people have a strong desire to explore and understand. Some people are more then average prone to their basic instincts. We do not evolve fast enough to all have a similair drive and be less prone to our instincts. Wars are a great way to cut out the "bad seeds" as has been done in the very distant past. Then spread your own genetic code , for example think of Genghis Khan. In the more recent past, a certain german leader decided that people with jewish characterstics where no benefit to humanity and tried to whipe those poor people out...
Do not get me wrong, i don't like wars at all. But wars seem to be the only way to speed up evolution processes in the past. But then again this is a simple thought because even between two brothers there is much genetic difference. Let alone people from two different countries being at war. Looking at it from a different point of view, two people from two different countries can be very similair in genetic code anyway. And pandemics have claimed many lives as well. The problem here is that immunity does not also automatically mean one is an improved version of a human. Many people with genetic "disorders" survive pandemic diseases to only find out that their children have a genetic disorder when both parents cary the specific gnene. cystic fibrosis and cholera is such an example. Another example is sickle cell anemia and malaria.

The problem is not everybody has the same drive for life...
But as civilized humans we cannot just start taking them out of the equation of life. Therefore a strong point of view of how to live a productive but enjoyable life is needed to encourage even the drive less people among us.
From American history, Kennedy once sad : Do not ask what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country. Let's change that into : Ask what you can do for your planet with all it's life and not what your planet with all it's life can do for you. Funny thing, i am an atheist but is that not the original basic principle of many religions ? I think of the word enlightenment...



By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2008 10:04:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sorry, but you need to study the Amish. In their communities, giving is gratified. They give for acknowledgment and a place in heaven, not for monetary profit.


Oh dear...

quote:
What I'm talking about is communal living. Sharing of resources, and bartering.


Yeah now its confirmed. You are totally a pothead. Communal living is a dead giveaway.

Clean yourself up, take a shower, and get a damn haircut you smelly hippie.


By JonnyDough on 12/8/2008 2:29:48 AM , Rating: 2
I'm probably more preppy than you. See my above statement about never doing drugs. Please, really. Gain some maturity and stop trying to assume things about people you've never met. It makes you look stupid.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2008 12:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why do "you people" always want to argue and label with communism and socialism?"

Because it's responsible for more pain and human suffering than anything else on the planet.

Next question?


By StevoLincolnite on 12/7/2008 3:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
"Communism and socialism failed to produce utopic societies; they produced quite the opposite. The system we have here (while far from perfect) has produced results. "

For one Communism is the peak of Democracy, for instance there is only a single party and no one votes.

I doubt any "Society" will produce "utopic" results, to many conflicting ideas unfortunately, however Democratic Society's even the Socialist democratic societies and Communism all have good points.


By JonnyDough on 12/8/2008 2:34:44 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly my friend. People that argue that one form of government is more people serving than another fail to realize that governments rise and fall, and in the end they ALL become a problem. There is no such thing as utopia because man cannot get along with man peaceably. It is arrogance and pride, greed and selfishness, and a lack of willingness to lay down arms and share with one another that keeps us in this cycle of unrest. If I were to have to choose a designated class or group of people to run my government, I would select historians. Anyone who can learn from history can also deduct and theorize. If you study ancient people and their behaviors and problems, then you cannot help but look at how we behave today and at the problems we face.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2008 12:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Socialist democratic societies and Communism all have good points.


Except have failed every single time they have been put into practice. Now why is that ?


By Smilin on 12/8/2008 12:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
...If you don't count our Chinese financial overlords.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2008 1:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
Capitalism is the reason for China's booming economy. They spent tens of billions to build a middle class. Something they didn't even have before.


By StevoLincolnite on 12/9/2008 9:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
They haven't failed, they are still here, and a democratic society like the U.S isn't doing very well at the moment in all realism either, hence I fail to see your point?


By JonnyDough on 12/10/2008 2:50:26 AM , Rating: 2
His point is "capitalism and oligarchy are the best!"

Ethnocentrism does not become them.


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki