Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
I went to nutch's site and read their description. I like the point the developers made regarding how their open system wouldn't include bias--or, at least, the biases would be publicly available.
To me, this isn't a case of government dependency. Although, I don't quite understand why that is even used in a negative fashion. The idea of government, to me, is that it should be responsive to and protective of the people's needs.
So dependency seems like an odd notion to disparage. We should be able to use collective, political action to effect change or regulate those who refuse to regulate themselves (not that Google isn't doing that already; rather, if the operators decide not to).
|
Eh, the fact of the matter is that google is in no way forced upon the masses. It does not meet the criteria to define it as a "natural monopoly" as are public utilities (gas, water, electricity). If you don't like google, you can simply
type in another url. You can't do that with the gas/electric/water/sewage/etc utilities. The article implies that google's competitors are making this push, which suggests to me that they are so inept that they are relying on the government to knock google down so that they can steal whatever proprietary technology they own.