__/ [John Bokma] on Friday 14 October 2005 07:08 \__
Okay, you pulled my finger, so I'll have to answer your questions. *smile*
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Interesting take. Some months ago I argued that in order to avoid bias
>> and avoid corruption, the following steps should at least be
>> - Make a search engine public service, much like the W3C's
>> validation services and ICANN/whois.net/relatives.
> - Who's going to pay for that?
> - Who's going to decide how it is going to work? The public?
> Will fail.
You must have hit reply before reading it the first time. *grin*
>> The Web belongs to
>> everyone in this world and search -- the means by which data gets
>> organised -- should be a service.
> Who defines this service?
A panel of people who are said to be suitable and are knowledgeable in the
field in question.
>> Likewise, an operating system should
>> be nobody's property.
> Why not?
By owning an O/S, you partly own a person's computer. You definitely have
/control/ over it. If a commercial body controls your computer, it can
steer you towards elements that serve its financial agenda, to name just
one aspect of the problem.
>> Hardware should,
Software can be duplicated. Hardware cannot.
Quality control and competition are encouraging development. You could use
the same arguments when referring to software, but let us assume that there
are many experts out there (there already are) who contribute to Open
Source and will continue to do so for reputation, not direct profit.
>> but not the platform upon which
>> people communicate. Conflicting interests leads to protocol
> Open Source doesn't mean that protocols will become clear, and well
> defined. Also, protocols are not limited to software, they are in
> hardware as well. Don't you just hate it when your 1 year old hardware
> doesn't all work in your new motherbord?
That is true. Need I raise the fact, however, that some hardware is design
to work only with Windows? (references on demand)
>>(I am going endlessly off topic, so I will stop)
>> - Have sites register in one form or another to state their aims and
>> scope. DMOZ goes some way towards that, but the whole
>> Google-DMOZ-mozilla.com (corporation) loveaffair is disturbing in my
> The same would happen if it became independent: there is an editor,
> there is someone who wants in it -> conflicts, corruption.
Yes, definitely. As we seek a way of verifying that a site is worthful, how
about specifying clear protocols for acceptance, classification, and
rating? You could say the same thing about taxing, but the system still
appears to work (let us pretend).
>> - Use more proper methods for exploiting knowledge and information.
>> Don't tell me (Schmitt) how long it will take you to index all human
>> knowledge (300 years, he said - reference available on demand). Do the
>> task _properly_! See the URL in the bottom of my sig as I truly
>> believe search engines are lagging behind what science (AI in
>> particular) has to offer.
> TANSTAAFL, that's the problem.
>>  Funding of crawling resources can be managed in the same way
>> Google does, e.g. paid listing in SERP's (not sponsored links in the
>> actual results), much like Yellow Pages where yellow/white tells apart
>> ham from spam.
>> I think there needs to be a strategic movement like GNU in order to
>> release ourselves from commercial search engines (and all-round public
>> information domnation). The financial entry barrier is high though.
> Yup, that's the whole point. GNU.... have a look at HURD...
I wonder what Torr has to say on the subject...
I also wonder if the next step for Google would be to steer users to
OpenOffice.org and other Java Desktop and JRE stuff. It now seems more
realistic and defensible view than a Google operating system ( a fantasy to
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Black holes are where God is divided by zero"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
7:50am up 49 days 20:04, 4 users, load average: 1.67, 1.03, 0.73
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms