5 ms·

> They're sorta turning into a commercially viable DARPA. This. Google and other companies at its scale don't need to worry too much about focus. They can just

> They're sorta turning into a commercially viable DARPA. This. Google and other companies at its scale don't need to worry too much about focus. They can just use the excessive amount of revenues made via software to throw resources at solving global problems and turning scifi into reality.

ocdtrekkie 12y ago
Scifi into reality: Terminator and Minority Report are great visions for our future. -_-
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Said someone who has Star Trek referenced in their nickname... Not every sci-fi vision is a dystopia.
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    Oh, the Federation, where the world isn't run by corporations? Yeah, Google is not working on that future.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Google is working on turning sci-fi technology into reality, not sci-fi politics. In the absence of a Third World War, a warp flight and subsequent first contact with the Vulcans, leveraging existing economy seems to be the best strategy for that.
  - personlurking 12y ago
    Isn't Star Trek about everyone basically working for the government (ie, in the military)?
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      No; Star Trek focuses on the "military" branch (Starfleet), but the majority of the population of United Federation of Planets are civilians.
      - personlurking 12y ago
        I stand corrected. Picard's home comes to mind. There has never been an attempt at a television series depicting Star Trek outisde Starfleet, correct? I mean, something created by the makers of Star Trek.
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        I don't know of any. Deep Space Nine came the closest, especially before the Dominion War arc. While the station itself was commanded by a Starfleet officer, it was still a sovereign Bajoran territory and most of the inhabitants were civilians.
    - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
      Well, everyone apparently works for free under the Roddenberry vision, so figure that one out. Presumably if corporations aren't controlling things like the Federation database, it would seem likely a significant portion of all real development is going straight to the government though, yeah.
- visakanv 12y ago
  We're all benefactors of this process. We're having this exchange on the Internet, with people all around the world. We use ATMs, escalators. Check out this video by Hugh Herr about bionics and watch how artificial limbs give people dignity and freedom and joy: https://www.ted.com/talks/hugh_herr_the_new_bionics_that_let_us_run_climb_and_dance https://www.ted.com/talks/hugh_herr_the_new_bionics_that_let...
- navait 12y ago
  I don't get all the hate for Minority Report. If we ever had the capabilities their society had, we could structure our justice system in a vastly different way. If we know a violent crime was going to happen weeks before it actually did, crisis units could intervene. Jails would only be needed for those who could never change. Suicides would be a thing of the past. Police officers would drop a "shoot first" policy, and end many of the abuses we have today. Everyone would be better off. Minority report's mistake is to assume we'll use old-fashioned police with new tech. But new technology allows us to change society in unimaginable ways.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    There are incredible technologies to predict crime now. The problem is that they require the government to collect huge amounts of information on people to inform the predictions. That's a trade-off that a lot of people are uncomfortable with, because sometimes the technology gets it wrong. And innocent people end up on the no-fly list, arrested, tracked, etc. Or worse, the system confuses political activism with actual criminality, and ends up protecting the status quo instead of just enforcing the law. I haven't seen Minority Report for a while, but I remember that being a big theme in that movie as well. Wasn't that the dilemma faced by Cruise's character? Go to jail to protect the system, or stand up and admit it is flawed.
    - navait 12y ago
      We don't have the technology to say "X will commit Y at place Z at time T". We have the technology to say "Person X is somewhat likely to be a terrorist based on known data". That's an important distinction - they only let traditional police do their jobs in a smarter way, not end their job as we know it.
tljr 12y ago
Too big to fail?
sparkzilla 12y ago
Until the core AdWords business fails, and then the whole thing falls apart.
- jonas21 12y ago
  This is precisely why Google needs to throw resources at solving big problems away from its traditional competency. By the time their ads business declines, they're going to need something even bigger to take its place to keep investors happy. Is it possible to build a new non-ad-supported software business that brings in $60 billion a year in revenue? Maybe. And I'm sure Google's trying. But it could be that their best bet is to invest in areas where the potential rewards are enormous and few others have the resources and organizational will to invest in.
  - sparkzilla 12y ago
    Sorry, I should have been more clear. Until their search business fails. The strategy you outline, and that Google is taking, smacks of desperation, and sends two signals to investors 1) the ad business is declining and 2) the company is desperately trying to find something else that works. However this is based on a false premise. Advertising is not going away. I don't see other media companies making cars -- instead I see them trying to work out new business models in their core area of competence. I suspect that much of this is founder driven. It's often the case that founders don't really like what their business has become. In Googles's case they want their legacy to be more than ads, so they are throwing money at vanity projects. These projects generate good press, and satisfy their ego, but in the real world they have little chance of success, and little hope of returning much to the company. For example, Google Glass.
    - stcredzero 12y ago
      Two questions come to mind: 1) What is the difference between Google Glass and Apple Watch? 2) What's keeping Google from using IP and competency they developed with Glass and putting it into their own watch product?
stcredzero 12y ago
> Google and other companies at its scale don't need to worry too much about focus. Which is why they tend to become incompetent at taking R&D and turning it into product.

ocdtrekkie 12y ago

Scifi into reality: Terminator and Minority Report are great visions for our future. -_-

TeMPOraL 12y ago
Said someone who has Star Trek referenced in their nickname... Not every sci-fi vision is a dystopia.
- ocdtrekkie 12y ago
  Oh, the Federation, where the world isn't run by corporations? Yeah, Google is not working on that future.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Google is working on turning sci-fi technology into reality, not sci-fi politics. In the absence of a Third World War, a warp flight and subsequent first contact with the Vulcans, leveraging existing economy seems to be the best strategy for that.
- personlurking 12y ago
  Isn't Star Trek about everyone basically working for the government (ie, in the military)?
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    No; Star Trek focuses on the "military" branch (Starfleet), but the majority of the population of United Federation of Planets are civilians.
    - personlurking 12y ago
      I stand corrected. Picard's home comes to mind. There has never been an attempt at a television series depicting Star Trek outisde Starfleet, correct? I mean, something created by the makers of Star Trek.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        I don't know of any. Deep Space Nine came the closest, especially before the Dominion War arc. While the station itself was commanded by a Starfleet officer, it was still a sovereign Bajoran territory and most of the inhabitants were civilians.
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    Well, everyone apparently works for free under the Roddenberry vision, so figure that one out. Presumably if corporations aren't controlling things like the Federation database, it would seem likely a significant portion of all real development is going straight to the government though, yeah.
visakanv 12y ago
We're all benefactors of this process. We're having this exchange on the Internet, with people all around the world. We use ATMs, escalators. Check out this video by Hugh Herr about bionics and watch how artificial limbs give people dignity and freedom and joy: https://www.ted.com/talks/hugh_herr_the_new_bionics_that_let_us_run_climb_and_dance https://www.ted.com/talks/hugh_herr_the_new_bionics_that_let...
navait 12y ago
I don't get all the hate for Minority Report. If we ever had the capabilities their society had, we could structure our justice system in a vastly different way. If we know a violent crime was going to happen weeks before it actually did, crisis units could intervene. Jails would only be needed for those who could never change. Suicides would be a thing of the past. Police officers would drop a "shoot first" policy, and end many of the abuses we have today. Everyone would be better off. Minority report's mistake is to assume we'll use old-fashioned police with new tech. But new technology allows us to change society in unimaginable ways.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  There are incredible technologies to predict crime now. The problem is that they require the government to collect huge amounts of information on people to inform the predictions. That's a trade-off that a lot of people are uncomfortable with, because sometimes the technology gets it wrong. And innocent people end up on the no-fly list, arrested, tracked, etc. Or worse, the system confuses political activism with actual criminality, and ends up protecting the status quo instead of just enforcing the law. I haven't seen Minority Report for a while, but I remember that being a big theme in that movie as well. Wasn't that the dilemma faced by Cruise's character? Go to jail to protect the system, or stand up and admit it is flawed.
  - navait 12y ago
    We don't have the technology to say "X will commit Y at place Z at time T". We have the technology to say "Person X is somewhat likely to be a terrorist based on known data". That's an important distinction - they only let traditional police do their jobs in a smarter way, not end their job as we know it.

tljr 12y ago

Too big to fail?

sparkzilla 12y ago

Until the core AdWords business fails, and then the whole thing falls apart.

jonas21 12y ago
This is precisely why Google needs to throw resources at solving big problems away from its traditional competency. By the time their ads business declines, they're going to need something even bigger to take its place to keep investors happy. Is it possible to build a new non-ad-supported software business that brings in $60 billion a year in revenue? Maybe. And I'm sure Google's trying. But it could be that their best bet is to invest in areas where the potential rewards are enormous and few others have the resources and organizational will to invest in.
- sparkzilla 12y ago
  Sorry, I should have been more clear. Until their search business fails. The strategy you outline, and that Google is taking, smacks of desperation, and sends two signals to investors 1) the ad business is declining and 2) the company is desperately trying to find something else that works. However this is based on a false premise. Advertising is not going away. I don't see other media companies making cars -- instead I see them trying to work out new business models in their core area of competence. I suspect that much of this is founder driven. It's often the case that founders don't really like what their business has become. In Googles's case they want their legacy to be more than ads, so they are throwing money at vanity projects. These projects generate good press, and satisfy their ego, but in the real world they have little chance of success, and little hope of returning much to the company. For example, Google Glass.
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    Two questions come to mind: 1) What is the difference between Google Glass and Apple Watch? 2) What's keeping Google from using IP and competency they developed with Glass and putting it into their own watch product?

stcredzero 12y ago

> Google and other companies at its scale don't need to worry too much about focus. Which is why they tend to become incompetent at taking R&D and turning it into product.