Let's Talk Fast! Scramjets At Mach 10

Something I just realized is that this is my blog and I can write stuff I think my readers want to know about even if it is not Web 2.0! News today from Reuters in Australia ab out an experimental jet engine is quite fascinating if oy are a "go fast" techno geek. The fantastic "scramjet" engine is reportedly capable of 10 times the speed of sound. You read rigth "10" times, or 6,835 mph. The engine is being tested in the outback by defese scientists from the U.S. and Australia at the Woomerang test facility (what a cool name).

Scram
Scramjets require a rocket to propel the vehicle to high-speed where the engine takes over in the thin atmosphere. Scramjets, short for Supersonic Combustion Ramjets use supersonic combustion air for super-maiximized combustion have a theorietic speed capacity of up to Mach 24 without the addition of oxidizers for combustion. By comparison, the fastest conventional jets only approach Mach 3.5. So, scramjet equipped aircraft could porivide the ultimate adrenalin ride for some luck test pilot. The testing is likely being done in Australia because at that speed the test vehicle would be over Nebraska before it could be slowed down to land.

Welcome Aboard
Imagine taking off from New York and being in Paris in half an hour. I can just hear the pilot saying: "Welcome about Bomerang filght 123, fasten your seat belts, place your head between your knees and kiss your asses goodbye because we will be landing in 15 more minutes." I love Web 2.0, but nothing quite tintilates the senses like the thought of raw speed.

The tests were successful according to officials from the U. S. Defense Advacned Research Porjects Agency or DARPA. The results are being evaluated and scientists are exvcited about the potential for using scramject technology for high speed flight on long range missions and for a cheap method of lauching satellites.

Technology is so cool, isn't it? Now if we could just learn to apply it to more humane endeavors, there is no telling what could be accomplished. For now it is still nice to know that your rocket scientists can come up with faster and faster stuff. There is a certain securtiy in that after all.

Is Google on Self Destruct?

Holy cow! I did not crank up my little blog here with the intent to write ab out Google every day, but every time I log on there seems to be another story about some Google blunder or other. The "one" that caught me eye today was about eBay pulling all their ads from Google's Adwords.

According to a story via Yahoo! News Google has been lobbying eBay to accept their "Checkout" online payment system, which is a competitor to eBay's PayPal system. So, Google decides to throw a party at the same time eBay is holding a conference for its merchants. What a way to treat a zillion dollar client huh? EBay tried to down play the whole issue and had this to say initially: "This is part of an ongoing experiment to look at how we market across all media channels, " said eBay spokesman Hani Durzy.

Adwords = Google

For those of you who don't know Adwords is Google's primary source of ad revenue and Yahoo! sources revealed that the eBay pullout was in response to Google's inappropriate behavior toward them. Durzy finally responded to questions about the Google party saying essentially that eBay did not think this was a way to treat a valued partner. No kidding? Well , don't expect them to apologize eBay, Google is above all that as we are seeing in other news.

Seriously folks, I do not just look around for goofy Google stuff to write about. I do not even like Google and would much rather write about other companies. However, they are a huge Internet presence that should have their act together. I guess that is how I am amazed at the arrogance and stupidity that abounds from them.

Where Do They Get Off?

Privacy, insults, international goofs, copyright issues and enough lawsuits to choke Harvard Law school. One stupid thing after another and everyone seems to just get all googly eyed every time they add some gadget. I don't get it. I applaud eBay for snatching their ads, perhaps if some more companies would grow a pair Google would act civilized, maybe even say when they are wrong or something big like that.

Google Gives A Little, Very Little

Google and the great data gathering factory.
Google is apparently backing up again today announcing that they will cut back on how long the company keeps Web search histories of users from 2 years back to 18 months. Search information will become anonymous after the year and a half. I am not sure what how 6 months less time in the Google vaults could be anything to cheer about in regard to privacy issues but it is something. Google just seems to step on more and more toes in an almost effortless jaunt across the Web 2.0 landscape.

Why
In an article yesterday Paul Glazowski reflected on the Privacy International issue I reported on in this blog. Paul points out potently that Google users are not going to be exactly thrilled to find out their histories are saved for even ten minutes let alone 2 years. Here we have another situation where Google simply backs up after going too far. This is the same tactic being employed in then YouTube copyright cases.

In a letter to Google mentioned in Paul’s post Privacy International pretty much hammers Google with what appear to be legitimate issues in light of Google’s claims against the non-profit privacy organization. Essentially the letter from Simon Davies Director of Privacy International demands an apology from Google for trying to discredit the otherwise untarnished organization.

Who Do They Think They Are?
The latest news via the New York Times reveals Google’s intentions more clearly. Google says that it shares general information on search trends, but does not release this personal information outside the company. In my post yesterday I pointed out that THEY DON”T HAVE TO! Half of the advertising on the Web is filtered through Google one way or another. The same holds true for any manipulation or machinating where user preferences, trends or privacy might enter into the equation. Google went on thumbing their nose at the Web according to this NYT article.

“We believe we can still address our legitimate interests in security, innovation and antifraud efforts with this shorter period,” Peter Fleischer, Google’s global privacy counsel, wrote in the letter. He added that the company would “firmly reject” a retention period that was any shorter.

According to Google’s global privacy Czar Google could not look at other companies and find any clear privacy policies. This is tantamount to telling Google users that “no policy means we do what we want.” The absence of clear policies for the world’s most powerful Web entity should indicate the need to supply their users with one don’t you think? Google is open to dialogue according to Fleisher, but given the statement about shorter data holding, it sounds like doubletalk to me.

Conclusion
Google just announced today that they would be testing technology to recognize copyrighted video and audio in response (after months) to the Viacom and Premier League lawsuits. I just reported at Profy about the latest companies to jump on YouTube in the class action suit. This is all becoming so systematic and predictable and really sickening in my book. Google is stacking up like one of those bullies you have to stomp an apology out of when they go wrong. In fairness to them (why I do not know) the other big companies practice some of the same tactics and use people’s information. However, no other entity has nearly as much control over the data collected. Maybe 20 or 30 million users migrating somewhere else because they were not aware of Google’s practices would equate to a good “stomping”

Privacy, Google, Web 2.0 and You

What do they want? This is perhaps the most revealing question any Internet user/consumer could ever ask. We all marvel and enjoy the great faculty that Web 2.0 platforms afford us, yet the ever present cloud of monetization looms over the whole infrastructure. The news that led me to this post is yet another finger pointed at Google, this time indicating practices no Web 2.0 user wants or needs.

Privacy International, a UK based activist group, released a report entitled: “Race to the Bottom – Privacy Ranking of Internet Service Companies” wherein Google rates last among 20 highlighted sites. According to a Reuters story via Yahoo! Google is described as having an entrenched hostility with regard to privacy. The report outlines a handful of specific concerns but is primarily focused on the growing concern in regard to Google’s dominance of the Web.

The Method
Privacy International performed this study of both Web 1.0 and 2.0 Internet companies in order to rank the best and worst performers with regard to their privacy practices. The analysis is based around 20 core principles that help rank the particular companies across the spectrum of search, email, e-commerce and social networking. The report was compiled from public sources (newspapers, blogs and etc.) and from company employees, technical analysis and interviews with company reps.

Say it Isn’t So
The details of this interim report are interesting if not totally conclusive to say the least. Without going into a quantitative analysis of my own, let me point out a simple fact that possibly lends credibility to this report. Even if Google did not share information with outside parties at this point, the inside track for sharing data within the Google virtual monopoly would be immense and counter to person privacy integrity for users. If Adsense, Doubleclick or other advertising dynamics are privy to your personal preferences and habits then we are all essentially being spammed in the most effective and Machiavellian way possible.

The use of Doubleclick’s Dynamic Advertising Reporting & Targeting (DART) is a borderline abuse of personal privacy given the breadth of Google’s reach. Simply put, Google no longer needs to share your information in order to manipulate you as a consumer for the can do it even more efficiently than the worst spammers. Would Google or any of these other entities take advantage of your information if they could?

The Good Guys
There are a few companies that get decent marks according to this report including; BBC.com, eBay Inc. and Last.fm, but even their track records are not pure as their rating is reflected as: “generally privacy aware but in need of improvement.” Microsoft was chastised for “serious lapses”, however most of this criticism resulted from serious past infractions. Google and the rest would certainly impose their unique brand of manipulation on companies they acquire, so looking for a real “good guy” in the online ad game might get harder as time goes on.

The Bad Guys
We used to view SEO companies who tried to manipulate the search engines as the bad guys, but what Google and the rest appear to be doing is not fighting manipulative SEO practices as much as “supplanting” them. The simplicity or this tactic is rather amazing if you think about it, just get rid of competing ads so that you can have your own advertising “cowboys” herd the huddled masses to the products and sites you get money from. So where is your privacy in all this high tech digital manipulation? In this writer’s opinion, you don’t have any.

Sleeping With the Fishes
The old saying is: “If it smells like a fish then if probably is one.” Just take a look at the Doubleclick website; it looks like an SEO vampire site with its fangs directly into the neck of every consumer. The wording, charts, data and tempo of the whole site leave little room for doubt as to what the goal is. The most intriguing (and scary) thing on Doubleclick is a video by Personal Life Media’s CEO Susan Bratton. Susan “power” sweet talks potential clients into some kind of Ivy League reworking of a used car sales pitch. I don’t think I have ever heard the term “beautifully leveraged” when referring to marketers taking advantage of a medium. The only flaw in this well scripted video is the last glances on each segment (spooky) by Susan and her unavoidable tendency to show off her 3 (ok 5 maybe) carat diamond ring. The whole video is reminiscent of the dressing room scene in The Devils Advocate (spooky).

Conclusion
I know some of you are thinking: “What has this got to do with me?” Well, I just don’t like the idea of people walking around thinking they are safe or are being treated fairly when nothing could be further from the truth. There is no definitive proof that Google or any of these other companies are misusing personal information, but the symbolic, logical and circumstantial evidence is all around. Vampires and other predators are no less obtrusive if they take blood directly from their victims or from the blood bank. From the craps table in Vegas to the Ford dealership in your home town and across Personal Life’s “Expanded Lovemaking” series, these bozos have us covered. I don’t like the insult, the invasion of my space nor do many of our readers I expect.

Fig. 1.1 mashup from Doubleclick and Personal Life.

Testing Spinlets on My Blog

The following is a test of the emergency Spinlet system that has been in private beta testing for a while now. If this Twitter example shows up properly we will know that both Spinlets and Philbo have done good!

Now let's go and see if this great tool renders what it should have shall we? Okay that worked really well, now let's see if the Digg Spinlet does as well.

Where are we now?

Web 2 point what? In about 100 blog posts I have covered so many aspects for the "new web" that I think I have become disoriented. O'Reilly coined the phrase, probably invented most of it to promote a whole new breed of web ventures for all we know, and now we find ourselves surrounded by it!
So where does that leave us? I really want to know? Certainly we are somewhere past the 1990's, but where. If Sony came up with a whole series of new TV's and other gadgets, would we call that Sony 2.0? Maybe we should devise a new terminology to simply say "new" or improved or different than before.
Is the web different than before though? I am not so sure that it is people. I love the user generated stuff sure, but just how much of the web is user generated and is it any good for anything? I get this image of a sheep herder watching 1000 sheep scurry around in a pasture, knowing full well that they are about to be sheared, and telling them: "good sheep, keep going you are doing great!"
There is no discounting the tons of user created videos, blogs, chats, forums and endless arrays or creative license. However, if all this content just leads to more web content, what are we accomplishing? These are questions I want my readers to answer. I would like for people to think a little bit about this. It is okay if you just want to comment by giving me the finger to get rid of some adolescent angst, I don't mine. It is a blog after all, but just for once I would like to feel the presence of something more than an abbreviated wb, np, wtf, afk or other dehumanizing brevity of contact. Do you feel me folks?
Please have at it then :)