Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(IT World)   The government running Google? What could possibly go wrong?   (itworld.com) divider line 34
    More: Interesting, Google, Google Reader, All Things  
•       •       •

2558 clicks; posted to Business » on 26 Mar 2013 at 9:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-26 09:13:11 AM  
The thing i don't understand is why Google is shutting down things like Reader and IGoogle... yes I am sure there are some legacy technical issues, but, I imagine they are very minor, and, if you just keep the products running as they are, they bring people to the Google brand for very little cost, vs. turning people to other services.

Especially with those two products, where it seems like they could easily ad ads to actually make revenue.
 
2013-03-26 09:42:50 AM  
Hurr hurr stoopit gub'mint.

How many banks failed when they were treated more like utilities, subby?

And after they were deregulated?
 
2013-03-26 09:58:26 AM  
Not news... Feds been working that angle when they figured out how powerful Google had become and realized the unprecedented data gathering it could accomplish.
 
2013-03-26 10:23:46 AM  

diaphoresis: Not news... Feds been working that angle when they figured out how powerful Google had become and realized the unprecedented data gathering it could accomplish.


IAW, why spy on your citizens when they turn over data freely?
 
2013-03-26 10:27:09 AM  
Well they do have the only search engine, just ask them.
 
2013-03-26 10:47:13 AM  
Are Google's products and services becoming a critical infrastructure that the government should ensure survives?

Are headlines that end in question marks nearly always unmitigated bullshiat?
 
2013-03-26 11:14:44 AM  

dletter: The thing i don't understand is why Google is shutting down things like Reader and IGoogle... yes I am sure there are some legacy technical issues, but, I imagine they are very minor, and, if you just keep the products running as they are, they bring people to the Google brand for very little cost, vs. turning people to other services.

Especially with those two products, where it seems like they could easily ad ads to actually make revenue.


So the government gives up control over the internet and then takes control of a small piece of it. That doesn't make sense, so yes it is possible/probable.

/I'll miss iGoogle, sure there are alternatives but it seems a waste to look for them now, waiting until iGoogle is turned off.
 
2013-03-26 11:26:38 AM  
Hold on a farking second. Google should be a utility, but internet access should still be in the hands of private companies who are SERIOUSLY holding us back speed wise?

fark that.
 
2013-03-26 11:30:19 AM  

Wendy's Chili: How many banks failed when they were treated more like utilities, subby?

And after they were deregulated?


When did either of these happen?
 
2013-03-26 11:34:00 AM  
Companies come and go. Governments tend to stick around long after they should have been changed.

That's what could go wrong.
 
2013-03-26 11:59:21 AM  

MugzyBrown: Wendy's Chili: How many banks failed when they were treated more like utilities, subby?

And after they were deregulated?

When did either of these happen?


New Deal - late 1970s
Late 1970s - present
 
2013-03-26 12:00:45 PM  
This is Fark, Subby.  Where the government should be running everything.
 
2013-03-26 12:02:13 PM  

Felgraf: Hold on a farking second. Google should be a utility, but internet access should still be in the hands of private companies who are SERIOUSLY holding us back speed wise?

fark that.


Yeah, if anything, it should be the reverse... internet access should be a public utility.  It is kind of like roads.... everyone has access to the roads that can get you from point A to point B and the government pays for their upkeep, but, you have to purchase the ability to set up a business along the road (ie, land, building materials, etc).   Although, taking that analogy further, and people complaining about private companies "throttling" your speed... the Govt. would do that too, just like they do with roads.... You want to drive on most highways in a major city... that's fine, but, you are paying tolls, otherwise, you can take city/county roads with lots of lights and just get there not as fast.   "Public Utility" Internet access would be similar.

Saying "Google" should be a public utility... I assume people mostly mean the search aspect... not "Google Drive", etc.   From that standpoint, "Google" itself shouldn't be a "utility", but, the government could have its own created and controlled Internet Search Engine.  Other than things that are clearly illegal (Child Porn, etc), they should put no restrictions on what is in the search results though.
 
2013-03-26 12:11:24 PM  
By that writer's logic, the government ought to run pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, the food industry, electric utilities, and any othe company that provides things we have come to depend on for our modern life. Like Starbucks.
 
2013-03-26 12:17:02 PM  
This from a nation still wrapping its head around the idea of public funded healthcare?  hahahahahah, uuhuohahahahahahahahah...whahahahahahaha.
 
2013-03-26 12:36:36 PM  
The government running Google? What could possibly go wrong?

www.vaxer.net
Google running the government? What could possibly go wrong?
 
2013-03-26 12:37:01 PM  
This article was dumb, and I feel dumber having read it, and the author is dumb too.

"Google may face a trust issue," Avent wrote, and that may, ultimately, be Google's biggest problem.

Of course they have a trust issue; they hold a ton of personal information and people are wary about how they can use it. But if anyone on earth thinks that information would be safer or better used by the US government, then holy crap sweet Jesus, God help us all. I want less government interference/help. Really, I think we could all survive without AdWords and Google search.

/minor Google shareholder and heavy Google user, especially maps and analytics.
/very minor shareholder
 
2013-03-26 01:00:57 PM  
 
2013-03-26 01:10:32 PM  

verbaltoxin: AltaVista - Yes, we exist!


Barely.... when "lori loughlin" and "John Stamos" are #1 and #2 in your "trending searches"... that means hardly anyone is using your search.   Unless this is supposed to be trending in 1997.
 
2013-03-26 01:22:31 PM  

skrame: This article was dumb, and I feel dumber having read it, and the author is dumb too.

"Google may face a trust issue," Avent wrote, and that may, ultimately, be Google's biggest problem.

Of course they have a trust issue; they hold a ton of personal information and people are wary about how they can use it. But if anyone on earth thinks that information would be safer or better used by the US government, then holy crap sweet Jesus, God help us all. I want less government interference/help. Really, I think we could all survive without AdWords and Google search.

/minor Google shareholder and heavy Google user, especially maps and analytics.
/very minor shareholder


Not that kind of trust... Monopoly trust...
 
2013-03-26 01:57:59 PM  

dletter: verbaltoxin: AltaVista - Yes, we exist!

Barely.... when "lori loughlin" and "John Stamos" are #1 and #2 in your "trending searches"... that means hardly anyone is using your search.   Unless this is supposed to be trending in 1997.


actually may try this; seems fine.

/first 2 trending names are from Teen Mom 2
// Leah & Jenelle.
///not chelsea or kailyn
 
2013-03-26 02:06:18 PM  
The infrastructure, maintenance and upgrade of the American Internet network should be a public utility. Internet service providers have taken in billions from the American tax payer and have not progressed at nearly the speed they should be. However, Google and companies like it, should not be touched unless they pose a risk.
 
2013-03-26 03:20:28 PM  

stellarossa: dletter: verbaltoxin: AltaVista - Yes, we exist!

Barely.... when "lori loughlin" and "John Stamos" are #1 and #2 in your "trending searches"... that means hardly anyone is using your search.   Unless this is supposed to be trending in 1997.

actually may try this; seems fine.

/first 2 trending names are from Teen Mom 2
// Leah & Jenelle.
///not chelsea or kailyn


Yeah, Lori & John dropped to #6 & #7 now.   But, seems like a combination of probably (A) looking at too short of a time frame for their "hot" searches, and (B) not have enough traffic that someone couldn't make something a "trending search" rather easily.

Lets all search for "Fark Party" and see if that can "trend" on Alta Vista soon.
 
2013-03-26 03:43:28 PM  

GilRuiz1: the government ought to run pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, the food industry, electric utilities, and any othe company that provides things we have come to depend on for our modern life


as opposed to the other way around.
 
2013-03-26 04:05:27 PM  
Could the day be coming when the government steps in to regulate or control Google?

When your primary objective is to do no harm, and the possibility exists for the government to try anything funny, there is this little thing called a self destruct button.
When I build a custom PC, there are a few features, like auto destruct.
I always liked the opening scenes of the old Mission Impossible series and I always though that if I died, there isn't anyone I would trust to safely dispose of my computer.
Which is why I don't have an I phone.
But I do have a neat feature on my PC if you try to take it over.
It's fairly simple.  But it works via a shielded independent UPS and it will destroy every thing on the HD, if you aren't me.
Why would I do this?
Privacy.
It's like printing your diary on flash paper and putting some sparkle powder in the candle next to the book with a pack of sparkly matches,
Only higher tech.
 
2013-03-26 04:05:28 PM  

vudukungfu: GilRuiz1: the government ought to run pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, the food industry, electric utilities, and any othe company that provides things we have come to depend on for our modern life

as opposed to the other way around.


Good point... is there really any difference when between lobbyists for companies heavily influencing bills, and former executives of these companies getting top level positions in the government for regulating their own industries, and suggesting the govt. should do it, other than the govt. basically making it a monopoly.... although, more and more the govt. is allowing monopolies in the industries anyway.
 
2013-03-26 04:50:28 PM  
Who writes these types of articles?  They are bordering on Alice in Wonderland in the abuse of logic, reason, and the use of the English language.
 
2013-03-26 06:08:20 PM  

stonicus: Not that kind of trust... Monopoly trust...


See, I told you I felt dumber...

My fault. I guess I wasn't thinking that way, because that's usually referred to with the mention of ant-trust, instead of just trust. Still, my bad.
 
2013-03-26 06:44:55 PM  
Of course Krugman favors government intervention. farker is always wrong.
 
2013-03-26 07:50:58 PM  

wildcardjack: Companies come and go. Governments tend to stick around long after they should have been changed.

That's what could go wrong.


like oil companies?
 
2013-03-26 08:04:17 PM  

vudukungfu: But I do have a neat feature on my PC if you try to take it over.
It's fairly simple.  But it works via a shielded independent UPS and it will destroy every thing on the HD, if you aren't me.
Why would I do this?
Privacy.
It's like printing your diary on flash paper and putting some sparkle powder in the candle next to the book with a pack of sparkly matches,
Only higher tech.


Dude, just encrypt your HD, for christ's sake. It's not rocket science.
 
2013-03-26 09:13:33 PM  
Wow what. There is nothing important Google provides that is not available elsewhere. Google is best known for search and email, both of which can be had from numerous other sources. Just because a corporation/brand is well-known or even ubiquitous does not mean it should be considered "too big to fail".
 
2013-03-26 10:51:41 PM  

links136: wildcardjack: Companies come and go. Governments tend to stick around long after they should have been changed.

That's what could go wrong.

like oil companies?


The oil companies are still kids, and after the anti trust legislation broke up the monopoly they now have a bit of competition. There's still multiple oil companies that compete and sometime fail or merge. There's one monolithic federal government that can't allow itself to collapse and tens of thousands of smaller governments that continue to exist even when they should probably merge more of their functions.

shiat, I saw a Dallas Taxi the other day, up close, and it had nine different operating permits from the various city governments within Dallas County, and I know he'd get shiat from Tarrant County cities if he picked up a fair over there after dropping someone off. If you want to build anything you have to figure out what the local variances are on the "standard" building codes for any number of small towns inside this metroplex. But no one ever wants to optimize governmental functions, that crazy talk.
 
2013-03-27 03:56:37 AM  
Paul f-ing krugman?  Lol
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report