Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Reasons (Score 4, Informative) 307

From your link:

"So we're fighting this massive loss of surface land [and] we're also subsiding because we're not replenishing these wetlands," Marshall says. "On top of that, here comes global warming and sea level rise." According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, southern Louisiana has "the highest rate of relative sea level rise of any place in the country, and one of the highest rates anywhere on the planet."

Comment Re:People are more worried about jobs (Score 1) 423

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately contrarian or if you're legitimately dense.

Saying they "paid for lower QOS for Google" is misleading; they would actually have paid for higher QOS for themselves, which is perfectly reasonable.

It wouldn't have been of any benefit to Yahoo to increase their QOS with Google's remaining unchanged. I'm saying that they could have partnered with companies that owned large portions of the network to slow down Google's access. If Google couldn't crawl it, it couldn't index it. If they couldn't index it, their search results wouldn't have been as good.

Google won because they were better, and they were better because they won?

Pretty much, yeah.

That's rather circular reasoning.

Perhaps but it's not wrong.

In actual fact, Google's search engine business would never have been a viable business on its own; it simply didn't make enough revenue. Google's search engine only survived because it was cross-subsidized by Google's advertising revenue.

It's extraordinarily difficult to make a profit on a "Free" service without advertising.

Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't support the argument that it was "better".

No, more people choosing Google over Yahoo, Bing and AOL means that it is/was better.

Net neutrality, in the end, is an arrangement where companies like Google can push ads on you and monetize free content and have you pay for the privilege through your ISP fees.

Except that with Net Neutrality in place, you are free to choose one of their competitors without the network penalizing you.

A few big companies have come to completely dominate the market because of that particular arrangement.

In a market where all are given the same access, a few companies dominating it are just proof that the market chose them.

Even if the completely unrealistic worst-case scenario of ISPs all replacing Google and Facebook with their own private offerings

That's a strawman. I never argues that.

They wouldn't be able to directly replace them, they would be able to give preferential treatment to the traffic of their own competitor. They can't replace them but they can make them near unusable to their customers.

LK

Comment Re:People are more worried about jobs (Score 1) 423

Companies like Verizon and Comcast would take over those markets. Why would that be a bad thing?

Less choice is in any of itself a bad thing. It just so happens to be a bad thing that leads to worse things.

How could Yahoo have "slowed down Google's traffic"? They were both just search engines.

By partnering with (paying) MCI, UUNET and others to shape the traffic and provide lower QOS to Google.

Hence my use of the phrase "make deals" to do it.

And based on what criteria was Google "better"?

That varied from user to user but for me, it was more relevant search results and a cleaner interface.

You're basically saying that you think Google is great and that hence the government should interfere in order to structure the market to make it advantageous for companies like Google.

No. I'm saying that Google was better than Yahoo. Because Google was better than Yahoo, they toppled them from their position as the go-to search engine and the government should interfere to keep the marketplace available for the next upstart to come along and topple Google, if they can.

LK

Comment Re: oh no (Score 1) 423

If you're lucky, you'll get here one day.

You'll be just as perplexed when someone takes offense at your use of the word "Uncle" because it's not only patriarchal but assumes the gender of the sibling of one of your equal co-parents.

LK

Comment Re:People are more worried about jobs (Score 2) 423

These companies know that "net neutrality" is in their financial advantage and makes it harder for small companies to compete.

More than that, it makes it harder for access providers to leverage their position as access providers to make inroads as content providers.

If Net Neutrality truly dies, Verizon and Comcast will be able to prioritize the traffic from their own competing services to harm Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and Google.

Without using traffic shaping, QOS or similar means to disadvantage the competition, any new upstart has to actually be better than an existing service.

Google beat Yahoo because Google was better at doing something. That wouldn't have happened if Yahoo had been able to make deals to slow Google's traffic to dial-up speeds.

LK

Comment Re:Nationalists, not religious fanatics (Score 1) 505

They were motivated by more than just nationalism.

There have been centuries of discrimination against Irish Catholics.

It would seem to me that the actions my government is taking with regard to muslims is only going to exacerbate a problem that could have remained a regional, political conflict.

LK

Slashdot Top Deals

Another megabytes the dust.

Working...