[geeks] Web based mail client for linux?

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

> It's part of Google's new policy since their new CEO took over. User
> their success to take over the internet. BPL is just one more way of
> making the internet a Google Adsense world. They are taking over
> public WiFi and print ads too.

Define "taking over".

> There are several technologies that can be used. The company they
> invested in, Current Communications, is one that promotes the dead
> end, interference causing technology. Others do not, but Google did
> not invest in them.

Again, if their technology doesn't work, why would Google invest in
them?  The most logical conclusion would be that the see potential for
improvement.  If they wanted to "take over" the Internet, they'd pick
the technology that already works, wouldn't they?  That's give them the
biggest return, as more of the money could go towards expansion rather
than development.

>> I don't really care either way about BPL.  It's likely going to be
>> consumer-grade crap for which I'll have no use, but implying that not
>> getting a GMail account is going to magically make BPL better is
>> lunacy.
>
> Why is it lunacy? Would you support a company that invested
> $100,000,000 in gun control? Outlawing private automobiles? Not only
> don't I use a gmail account, I don't use Google to search, look at
> their videos, read news groups from their servers, or look at websites
> that have "ads by google."
>
> Nor do I patronize advertisers who I find out use "ads by google".

To advertisers, Google is a medium, nothing else.  They'll write you off
as a nut who probably wouldn't buy from them, anyway.  As far as the
Google advertising medium goes, in particular, it is absolutely the
least irritating and intrusive.  By boycotting them, you're encouraging
the real scum (DoubleClick, Vibrant/IntelliTXT, etc.).

> If enough people did that, their revenue would suffer and they would
> back out.

The problem is that there're never "enough" people.  It's just like spam
and just like Wal*Mart.  There are enough idiots to make them
profitable, so they won't go away.  Most people just don't care enough.

It seems a more productive method of operation would be to get people to
care first.  Especially since out of all the companies involved, you
picked one of the most ubiquitous and trendy to fight.  When you ask
people to choose between a decent search engine and CB radio, you have
an uphill climb unless you present a really compelling argument.

>> BPL is -way- down the priority list in that particular scenario.
>
> Then how do you expect to communicate?

We survived before the days of instantaneous communication; will survive
during temporary blackouts.

> I can't speak for the blunders of the people in the U.S., but one
> would hope they can learn. What they can't do is turn off BPL once it
> gets a foothold.

The FCC can turn off anything that they want.  Analog satellite and
analog TV broadcasts are on the chopping block.  If BPL irritates enough
people to lobby the FCC, it'll get turned off, too.  I'd assume most of
the regulating bodies in other countries are just as easily swayed by
cash and lobbyists.

-- 
Jonathan Patschke   )  "We know more about security than anyone else in
Elgin, TX          (    the world."      --Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO