Invisible wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> As you maight know for $us. 44.6 Billions. I think Yahoo should stay 
>> in bussiness what do you think?
> 
> Yahoo is still going?
> 
> Oh well, no loss...
> 
Well actually I think indirectly we all loose if Yahoo! call it quits.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote
> 
>> As you maight know for $us. 44.6 Billions. I think Yahoo should stay in
>> bussiness what do you think?
>>
>> I think they're doing fine and is not the money exclusively, is about a
>> philanthropy/philosophy for service for the humanity,
> 
> What are you smoking?
> 
> 

What do you have for brains? can you think in something better to write?

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> >   If MS tried to buy the Free Software Foundation, that would be interesting.
>
> That is MS & Bill Gates wet dream, dooms day for MS competition at the
> best price possible (free).

That would only mean Bill'd be the copyright owner of several important GPL
projects.  Unfortunately for him, said copyright specifically grants the right
to others to copy and change the software the license covers.  If that day ever
happened, day 2 would see some thousands of forks for said software...

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> somebody wrote:
> > "Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote
> >
> >> As you maight know for $us. 44.6 Billions. I think Yahoo should stay in
> >> bussiness what do you think?
> >>
> >> I think they're doing fine and is not the money exclusively, is about a
> >> philanthropy/philosophy for service for the humanity,
> >
> > What are you smoking?
> >
> >
>
> What do you have for brains? can you think in something better to write?

well, you should agree that Yahoo! is not "about a philanthropy/philosophy for
service for the humanity".  They are at it for the money just as much as M$.

what I can't agree is this much influence, money and power concentrated so
tightly in the hands of a single american company...

Post a reply to this message

47ae138b@news.povray.org...
> I know Google is the best thing on the Internet for what Google does,
> (Internet and Office tools) but Yahoo! is good enough to stay on  The
> Net, IMO.

To make things clear: Google and Yahoo are *** advertising networks ***. 
This what they do for a living: sell advertising space and other marketing 
services. What they offer - search engines, image banks, email services, 
office apps etc. is just a sideshow, or to use marketroid speach, assets to 
be leveraged, that only exist to bring ads to your desktop.

Say what you want about Microsoft, it's still primarily a software company 
that creates and sells IT products. Google and Yahoo only exist to make you 
buy noodles, porn and garden tools. Of course, MS would like a piece of that 
cake too, but think twice about saying that "Google is the best thing on the 
internet".

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> that only exist to bring ads to your desktop.

"It is to be remembered that the reason we have programs on television 
and music on radio is that nobody wants to listen to the advertisements."

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:

> 47ae138b@news.povray.org...
>> I know Google is the best thing on the Internet for what Google does,
>> (Internet and Office tools) but Yahoo! is good enough to stay on  The
>> Net, IMO.
> 
> To make things clear: Google and Yahoo are *** advertising networks ***. 
> This what they do for a living: sell advertising space and other marketing 
> services. What they offer - search engines, image banks, email services, 
> office apps etc. is just a sideshow, or to use marketroid speach, assets to 
> be leveraged, that only exist to bring ads to your desktop.

Point taken. BUT some Google produts are free of ads and are useful so 
your afirmation falls short here.

> Say what you want about Microsoft, it's still primarily a software company 
> that creates and sells IT products.

Which are in many cases slower and sometimes so crappy. I've heard so 
many times saying I'm not using this MS product because is too slow, 
features are difficult to use, lacks of this and that, the GUI is a 
mess, this product does better on this and that... This is why they're 
are as pathetic as gigantic they are. Money doesn't mean necessarily 
that you have the best product or you're the best at something, but MS 
should since has all the resources it needs to accomplish that.

Many people buy MS just for the "compatibility" with Windows and because 
they think MS is just great for some reason I can't understand. One 
thing I can say about MS without fear of mistaken is that they excel in 
mediocrity.

> Google and Yahoo only exist to make you 
> buy noodles, porn and garden tools.

You fall short here too, they exist so that you don't spend countless 
hours searching for some product on your own, they have made bullet 
speed search engines and offer lots of resources to find the service you 
  need, no matter how odd it may seem.

> Of course, MS would like a piece of that 
> cake too,

they want a peace of everything so they can be mediocre on it.

  but think twice about saying that "Google is the best thing on the
> internet".
> 
> G.

I frankly think it is, I don't have to think twice about it, and you 
should read the whole sentence to realize what I meant, you missed :"... 
best thing on the internet for what they do", not on everything possible 
as you tried to show that I said that.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> well, you should agree that Yahoo! is not "about a philanthropy/philosophy for
> service for the humanity".  They are at it for the money just as much as M$.

http://forgood.yahoo.com/index.html

And Google has many tools you can use for free, I know everything free 
needs economic support anyway, hence the ads and the comercial versions, 
but is IMO is a low price to pay for so many useful things Google has to 
offer. I use mostly Google's search engine and "ad sense" brings a few 
lines of ads, oh please! Is ridiculously chep in exchange for the 
usefulness of the ingo I get. OK, take 'Google Desktop', makes a good 
job indexing your files and is free (you have a choice to not to install 
Google Toolbar on  the installation process).

For all this I say they strive for philanthropy/philosophy for
service for the humanity as much as possible.

> what I can't agree is this much influence, money and power concentrated so
> tightly in the hands of a single american company...

agree.

Post a reply to this message

> You fall short here too, they exist so that you don't spend countless 
> hours searching for some product on your own, they have made bullet speed 
> search engines and offer lots of resources to find the service you need, 
> no matter how odd it may seem.

The search engines have exactly one purpose, which is to collect the search 
words from you and me and turn them into keywords (adwords) that are in turn 
sold to their clients (who bid on the words). The search engines and the 
other Google and Yahoo products are actually datamining tools, even if they 
don't carry ads themselves. This is why they are so efficient.
In 2006, 99% of Google's revenue (10.6 billion dollars) came from 
advertising 
(http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312507044494/d10k.htm).

It doesn't meant that Google and Yahoo don't provide good services, but we 
shouldn't be blind to the reason why they provide these services. "Don't be 
evil" is nothing much than a marketing slogan. And if they were to 
disappear, the void would be filled instantly by other ad networks.

(by the way, I was always intrigued by the fact that a lot of Google 
services are in perpetual beta. A regular IT company would suffer from this 
(see what delaying Vista costed Microsoft), but Google, as an advertising 
company, obviously uses the betas as testbeds for datamining ideas, and 
drops them if they fail to generate ad revenue, direct or indirect).

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote

> > well, you should agree that Yahoo! is not "about a
philanthropy/philosophy for
> > service for the humanity".  They are at it for the money just as much as
M$.
>
> http://forgood.yahoo.com/index.html

Every large company has some sort of a "do good/feel good" program, it's a
marketing necessity nowadays, not out of "philanthropy/philosophy for
service for the humanity" (!?). And don't forget Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

Knee jerk reaction is to root for the ""underdog"" and disparage the
"overdog", but MS is probably more "greener" than Yahoo, and if your motive
is truly philantrophy and not simply being anti-MS, it makes more sens to
root for Bill: More of each $1000 you put in Bill's pocket will go to good
causes than from $100 you put into pockets of 10 different people.

Post a reply to this message