  KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | The thing is, if anyone can make it happen...
... Google is that someone. | |
|
 |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02 | Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen... Quite possibly true. | |
|
 |   L337 Premium join:2005-03-10 Chicago, IL | Honestly I rather work for Yahoo! and fight Google. | |
|
 |  |  Radioman991
join:2001-09-24 Dayton, OH | Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen... said by L337 :Honestly I rather work for Yahoo! and fight Google. +1 | |
|
 |  |   Noah Vail Premium join:2004-12-10 Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by L337 :Honestly I rather work for Yahoo! and fight Google. I've had a lot more machines infected by ads served up by Yahoo! owned ad servers (ie: Overture) than by Google owned ad servers (none at all).
Now that I think about it, out of the last dozen or so malware infections I've cleaned up; about half incurred at the other end of a Yahoo! search click-through and none from Google link.
I know what I have to guard against.
NV -- In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people. I call it the Crapture. | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |   SRFireside
join:2001-01-19 Houston, TX
| Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen... Somebody has to pay for all that free content on the Internet. Did you think they were just doing it for their own entertainment? I swear some of you people don't get it. You can get free television over the airwaves, free radio stations, web pages you can view and enjoy for free and you complain when the reason it's free is because advertisers are paying for the space and time to hock their wares. What do you want? Content you have to pay yourself enough to keep the enterprise running or content you don't have to pay for but will have to put up with some ads? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   knightmb Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01 Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen... said by SRFireside :Somebody has to pay for all that free content on the Internet. Did you think they were just doing it for their own entertainment? I swear some of you people don't get it. You can get free television over the airwaves, free radio stations, web pages you can view and enjoy for free and you complain when the reason it's free is because advertisers are paying for the space and time to hock their wares. What do you want? Content you have to pay yourself enough to keep the enterprise running or content you don't have to pay for but will have to put up with some ads? And somebody did for years before advertisements hit the web. The problem is that everyone uses advertisements as an excuse for anything on the web. There are other business models to keep a website up and running besides virus infected Viagra ads; flashing, rolling, jump in your face ads.
The Internet got along just fine years before ads were the next big thing. Ads are of themself a snake oil that fools everyone into thinking a website will make millions from advertising or can only be supported by ads. It's a self-serving yet self-defeating process.  -- Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like: Click Here to pollute their data | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   Jason Levine Premium join:2001-07-13 USA
| Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen... Not every ad is virus infected or annoying. IMO, Google Ads does it right, simple text ads related to the content of the page (at least as closely as they can match it). -- -Jason Levine Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   SLD Premium join:2002-04-17 1 edit | Yeah, who says you have a *right* to exploit a service for profit. Oh yeah, the conservatives say so. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |   calvoiper
join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen... said by SLD :Yeah, who says you have a *right* to exploit a service for profit. Oh yeah, the conservatives say so.
No "right" to extract a profit from the service I provide? Fine. I provide no service. What improvement is that? -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
 |  |   Megladon1
| ...And thats why your L337 and not 1337 | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  AVonGauss Premium,MVM join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL | It depends on how serious Google is about it, a lot of Google projects are started and never reach a "1.0" revision experience. | |
|
 |  |   Jerm
join:2000-04-10 Richland, WA | Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen... I think the "bar" for 1.0 has been lowered with a lot of the crap written these days and Google gets there but just never past that... 2.0, 3.0 etc | |
|
 |  |  nitzan Premium,VIP join:2008-02-27
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| said by AVonGauss :It depends on how serious Google is about it, a lot of Google projects are started and never reach a "1.0" revision experience. A "lot" actually being more like "almost all". These days Google is like the stock-market millionaires of the late 90's - it wants all the new toys and it wants to be in everything. Once it figures out the new toy is not as hot as it thought before - it simply loses interest. What's another $30mil to throw away at another project? NEXT!! | |
|
 |  |  |   dib22
join:2002-01-27 Kansas City, MO | Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen... would you rather them focus in so narrowly that they spend all their time figuring out ways to squeeze more profit out of everything ad infinitum until they end up like our cable and phone companies? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  nitzan Premium,VIP join:2008-02-27
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| Re: The thing is, if anyone can make it happen... They're going to end up like the cable and phone companies anyway - it's just a matter of time. The corporate crowd is slowly but surely taking over the big G machine.
Why do you think they want to be in everything? it's the corporate folks pushing because they want to find more ways to make money (which is pretty sad considering they really don't NEED any more). | |
|
 |  |  |  |  hottboiinnc ME
join:2003-10-15 Cleveland, OH | Next we'll see a Google TV and a Google Fridge. | |
|
 |  |   tiger72 SexaT duorP Premium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO clubs: | GMail was in "beta" for how many years? Functionally, the entire duration gmail was in beta it was rock-solid stable.
I'll take 1000 google betas as long as they keep innovating for free. | |
|
 |   sozialism
@pacbell.net
from: SLD 
| the company that is big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have | |
|
 |   Yawn
@co.uk | Thats a bit tiresome and naive, how about M$? They have more spare cash each year than google GROSS in a year. Why do you all STILL think Gogle is a wonder-horse?  | |
|
  Z80 1 point 77 Premium join:2009-08-31 Amerika 1 edit | Big difference between Google and those scammers This is almost a hobby for Google, not a gimmick that is to be their only income and make them rich. Google doesn't have the same incentive to overhype this like those scammers did. | |
|
 |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02
Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: Big difference between Google and those scammers Sure. One problem though is that about 90% of the innovation I see at the lab at Google stumbles around like an alleyway drunk before being forgotten, so my only point is I'd like to see it applied in the real world before anybody gives out kisses... | |
|
 |  |   Z80 1 point 77 Premium join:2009-08-31 Amerika | Re: Big difference between Google and those scammers Come on...you don't like 4 years of betas? | |
|
 |  |  |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02 | Re: Big difference between Google and those scammers Only if there's lots and lots of accompanying press releases.  | |
|
  NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| Ok, I have to ask... With the amount of bandwidth available increasing, do we really need a new protocol to speed up web browsing? It would seem that as the speed of the connections to the network increases, the necessity of this protocol wanes. Additionally, with the option of simply tuning how your browser uses the network, you could probably achieve similar speed increases without needing a new protocol. -- Kilroy was here | |
|
 |   TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Ok, I have to ask... said by NetAdmin :With the amount of bandwidth available increasing, do we really need a new protocol to speed up web browsing? It would seem that as the speed of the connections to the network increases, the necessity of this protocol wanes. Additionally, with the option of simply tuning how your browser uses the network, you could probably achieve similar speed increases without needing a new protocol. Good points. This page took .719 secs to load(based on Fasterfox add-on's timer). Will I actually notice or care if the page loaded in .35 secs?
Rather than some noticeable improvements for end users, this may be more about cutting down on the number of bytes delivered by Google's servers(header compression, etc). They are always looking for efficiencies(no matter how incrementally small) to cut down their costs. Even small efficiencies become huge when measured against how much data Google moves daily. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
 |  |
 |  |   NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| Re: Ok, I have to ask... said by iansltx :Browser tuning is one thing, but SPDY sounds like it better takes advantage of whatever internet connection you have. Home connections aren't perfect, and realistically any increase in effective bandwidth (via compression or other peans) will result in a better web experience. There are some websites that still don't load with alacrity (triple word score!!!1!) on my 22/5 Comcast connection that a tuned browser and a hot protocol could fix. First, nice use of the word alacrity. Now put down the thesaurus. 
Ok, so SPDY takes advantage of the connection you have, but how much of the load time can be attributed to the connection? What about the effects of an overloaded or underpowered web server or database server (for dynamic sites)? What about the effects of the local client system that is running poorly?
So many factors affect the perception of browsing speed that a new protocol seems to have its limits. -- Kilroy was here | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |  |   SLD Premium join:2002-04-17 | Were you thinking of GoDaddy.com? | |
|
 |  |  |  iansltx
join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO | Re: Ok, I have to ask... My host? No, it's »mddhosting.com. I don't host anything on GoDaddy, including domain names. Those are over at name.com, 1&1 or domain.com. | |
|
 |   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| said by NetAdmin :With the amount of bandwidth available increasing, do we really need a new protocol to speed up web browsing? If you're on dial-up I'm sure you would | |
|
 |  |   Amadeus Premium join:2005-05-02 Miami, FL | Re: Ok, I have to ask... Took the words right out of my mouth....we all seem to forget our fellow americans that are not on broadband  -- Think Ahead. Learn More. Solve Now! | |
|
 |  |  ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23 Tuscaloosa, AL
| Not just dialup. Look at the limited bandwidth of the sat services and mobile networks, not to mention people in developing countries. After all, the Internet extends far beyond industrialized nations.
Also, bandwidth usage is often highest when people need critical information, so anything you can do to increase the number of users who can access a Web site can count in those situations. | |
|
 |  |   NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
1 edit | said by BF69 :If you're on dial-up I'm sure you would At that speed, a new protocol isn't enough to mitigate the two-fold problem of the high latency's effects on TCP and the low bandwidth. At some point you get slow enough that the connection itself is your main limiting factor. -- Kilroy was here | |
|
 jimbopalmer Tsar of all the Rushers
join:2008-06-02 Greenwood, MS | I wish Stuart Cheshire would look at it. »www.stuartcheshire.org/ If he can't blow holes in it, it has no weaknesses. -- I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish. | |
|
 iansltx
join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Where do I sign up? Hmm, reduced bandwidth on web sites, with compression and better protocol handling...is there a web server add-on that can allow this for pages served by, say, a LiteSpeed server? If such a thing were to be available, I'd love to convince my web host (small enough to be convince-able) to put it on their monster systems and make my site, and the other content driven sites that I work on, load even faster.
Because, after all (and not joking here), sites that load faster keep people engaged longer, and that's good for everyone  | |
|
 |
 |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
  bender Bite my shiny metal ass Premium join:2005-03-19 Evanston, IL clubs: | i smell april 1st i smell an april fools day prank comin. | |
|
 |   calvoiper
join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: i smell april 1st said by bender :i smell an april fools day prank comin. I would to, but it isn't March.
calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
 majortom1029
join:2006-10-19 Lindenhurst, NY | hmm I noticed the biggest problem is dns servers. Once I switched to opendns my webpages all come up instantly.
I dont think other faster protocols will have a noticable effect. | |
|
 |
  ErrNO
@co.uk | Streams are bi-directional....YIKES! "Streams are bi-directional, i.e. can be initiated by the client and server." In comes yet another new client facing DOS vector - Yay NOT! Thanks, but no thanks Googlez. | |
|
 |
|
 |