Old days on the steets of New York, police questioning a street vendor selling his warez from his trench coat:
Cops: "Is this a real rolex?"
Vendor: " Yes Sir, same same but different"


Future Cops of New York questioning a street vendor selling his warez from his trench coat:
Cops: "Is this a real HDMI to HDMI cable?"
Vendor: " Yes Sir, same same but different"

Just go to Options -> Exclusions tab,
in the "Other Terms to Exclude:" field enter "Google"

Now you will no longer see anything.

I guess that's exactly my point on this Google+ and the "Social Front" the article talks about.

Do I bother investing time and setting up Google+ and investing personal time in it? What I've learned with Google is wait and see else don't be surprised if all the time you've invested sort of goes "POOF" and turns into a... well... 'Cloud', of smoke that is.

Why? Because they are things you didn't use?

Google Notebook? Some of us actually used that.

Google Video? Some of us used that too. Sure we could move to Youtube or Vimeo or 100 sites now. Point is Google Video ended.
Wave? Yeah, it was never huge, but I got a lot of people signed up and had quite a few good Waves.
Yes, I use/used Google Health. So what? Again I get burned.

There's more I never used. Dodgeball, Jaiku, Google Catalog Search, Mashup, Lively, Google Answers, etc that I never used, but just goes to show they are not afraid to move on. Which is probably good for them, just bad for me.

Yeah, I'm not too excited about anything "Google" that's personalized anymore. I mean I still like Google and they have some great ideas and products and Google is still my home page and my pretty much the only place I search from.

That said I don't trust them to keep anything going long term. Every time I find something useful, it gets taken away, Google Health the most recent on the chopping block. And I'm sure we can make a list of other that have fallen to the wayside. Wave of course. I even dialed 800-Goog-411 the other day to get a phone # and it was gone.

It's hard to want to invest in personalizing anything Google these days. I use to feel secure thinking my "Gmail" account would be around a while. These days I'm not so sure.

How about a few seconds? I'll give you the link so you can test it too.

I went to:
http://www.icarosdesktop.com/dl.htm

Here is the direct link:
http://www.icarosdesktop.com/icarosfiles/torr/IcarosLive_1_3_0.torrent

Here is a picture of the speed at just 4%
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/6894/operatorrent.jpg

Now, that particular one is not the fastest torrent out there, in fact I think it is only seeded by a few people, but it is a legit one that I actually do download when there are updates to this particular AROS distro.

That is 866.3 KB/s reached in a few seconds in Opera's built in client. Now I run uTorrnet anyway for things I seed myself longterm, but it's nice to just DL a file and not worry about anything. It's also nice when I have Opera running from a thumb-drive (option from Opera's default installer BTW) that I can just DL a torrent from "anywhere" just as I would any other DL and not have to mess around.

Again, as the article says BitTorrent has been around 10 years. I think it's common sense that you should be able to download a "download" in your browser.

Do I use an FTP client when moving lots of stuff around on my server? Hell yeah. Do I use my FTP client when I want to download a quick file of webpage and the linked file happens to start with ftp: ? Hell no.

Chrome installer is like 24+ MB

You miss the point. Your GNU/Linux distro has an FTP client built in too. Evertimey a DL link happens to start with ftp: do want to have a separate client open or do you want your browser to just DL the file? I bet 99% of the time when you DL something you don't even know if the DL link you click was http or ftp. Nor should you care. The browser takes care of it for you.

This is similar to how Opera handles torrents. For a quick DL you can just click it like I would any other DL and it's in my download list. Easy peasy.

Should it replace a full BitTorrent client? No.
Should a browser replace an full FTP client? No.

Should a browser be able to download a file quickly off the internet whether it be http, ftp, torrent, etc? Yes.

How many megabytes smaller is the Opera download than Firefox download again ;)

FF Win32 - 13.0mb
Opera Win32 - 9.8mb

Even if I just want to use it as "only a browser" I guess it's still smaller! Interesting. Oh yeah, and on topic it downloads torrents too!

Yeah, and maybe I'm wrong. but if Firefox and Chrome etc, supported in right in the browser and it was easier for people to use it might be used for more legit content. I could be complete wrong about that though.

I think a lot of legit adoption (ie BitTorrent replacing things like RapidShare for everyday quick uploads) has to do with learning how to seed a torrent the first time, learning to use a tracker, etc.

Yeah, I remember people saying that about FTP. ;)

Why would you want to "download" a file using FTP in a 'Browser", that's what an FTP client is for.

BitTorrent still doesn't seem remotely mainstream still. I know with Opera you can basically treat a torrent almost like any other download. I'm not sure why other browsers never took this approach. I know for the e-l33t around here you all want a separate client, but for those that just want to download the occasional torrent the browser seems like the logical place to support ahhh...."downloading" of a file. I don't know....

I actually used Google health along with members of my family.

Main use is each member has any list of medications and and importantly "Allergies".

I used to have a piece of paper in my wallet with this information, this was much more convenient to access from anywhere I needed. It was good for an emergency, any when in a medical office visit where you have to fill out some form, and honestly I can't remember all this crap at this age anymore.

It really is handy. More convient then scratching things off a piece of paper and updating it. Now I don't know how many people are in the medical industry, but there are lots of sites that are HIPAA Compliant that you can pay for, for this type of service, but Google was free and I could care less if the world knows about my Google logins allergies. The trade off was fine.

This however is just another straw in the "Cloud" coffin.


I think something like Opera Unite is much more interesting (The implementation is far from perfect), but an easy users side "Server" with plug-in blocks that can have 100s of mini servers serving anything--- WhiteBoard server, Web server, Music server, Video Server, Medical server, PostIt Note server, etc....

No, Opera Unite, does not go through Opera.com. It can use a DynDns style url for easy access through opera.com, but you can access it directly through your IP and port #. Again, just the concept I think is more interesting anyway then the cloud. Any easy server, with "plug any anything" server modules.

So what service are these people paying you for? Are they paying for an advertised known limited bandwidth service and then going over their limit? If that is the case then why not cut them off when they reach their cap??

Or are you just offering them "Internet" service. Then when they actually "USE" it, your panties get in a bunch?