Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors

Post by telaport » Wed, May 01, 2019, 12:57 AM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #165

basetop wrote: post #160

Eric Schmidt was the anti-privacy leader who dismissed privacy concerns. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmid... Keep in mind this is the same guy who blackballed CNET reporters for finding personal information on him through google search. https://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology…

> Eric Schmidt was the anti-piracy leader who dismissed privacy concerns. You mean anti-privacy I think? It took me way too long to get there.

Post by skookumchuck » Wed, May 01, 2019, 1:03 AM UTC

basetop wrote: post #160

Eric Schmidt was the anti-privacy leader who dismissed privacy concerns. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmid... Keep in mind this is the same guy who blackballed CNET reporters for finding personal information on him through google search. https://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology…

Post by segmondy » Wed, May 01, 2019, 1:07 AM UTC

anyfoo wrote: post #5

This is of course extremely subjective, and I have no knowledge of what Google was and is on the inside except for a short internship almost 10 years ago: I somehow always felt that Google with Eric Schmidt as a CEO was a much different Google than later on. Under Eric Schmidt, Google seemed like this extremely innovative company with the brightest minds in the industry. Afterwards, it seemed to instead grow into jus…

Post by themacguffinman » Wed, May 01, 2019, 1:08 AM UTC

KeenFox wrote: post #145

sumeno wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they're not even attempting to play in the cryptoverse. They aren't even attempting to play in snake oil or astrology either

Crypto is 99% woo, but the 1% is interesting. The interesting stuff isn't world-stompingly amazing, so it gets less press. I like the idea of someday being able to take pennies worth of payments from places where transaction fees alone at traditional payment processors represent a huge % of income. Bitcoin won't be the one to do it, but some of the coins that depend on something other than proof of work might. At lea…

Post by z92 » Wed, May 01, 2019, 1:12 AM UTC

romwell wrote: post #149

z92 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was because you couldn't "sign up" for Orkut. You had to receive an invitation from someone who already has an account. Therefore it spread in regions where people knew one another, instead of spreading smoothly. The reason why they kept it like that was because of the processing power that was needed to serve the pages. That was more than search. Every individual had to be served a different page. And computing…

>Facebook was the first social network where you can actually go and signup an account on your own. That's doubly false :) First, all social networks that preceded it (LiveJournal and MySpace were big amongst my peers) had open sign-ups. Second, Facebook became popular because the sign-up was not open. You needed to have an .edu email address to sign up. This was a feature , as it kept parents and younger siblings of…