Federal Aviation Administration

FB vs. G+

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 

An interesting artifact of the FB vs. G+ debate is the justification by a lot of tech-savvy people in moving to G+ from FB because they believe Google to be less evil.  It is an odd comparison to make, both companies are in essentially the same business: putting out honey pots of desirable web properties, attracting users, harvesting them, and selling their data.

Distinguishing between grades of evil in companies that harvest and sell user data seems a little arbitrary.  I’d think it would make more sense to use each resource for what it does well rather than arbitrarily announce that you’re one or the other.

However, if one is making the choice as to what service to call home on the basis of least “evil” and assuming that metric is derived in some way from the degree to which the company in question harvests your data and sells it, then it is somewhat illuminating to look at real numbers.  One can assume that the more deeply one probes each user captured by the honey pot, the more data extracted, the more aggressively sold, the more money one makes. The company that makes the most money per user is probing the deepest and selling the hardest.

From Technology Review May/June 2011, annual revenue per monthly unique US visitor:

Facebook: $ 12.10
Google:     $163.60

Google squeezes out and sells more than 13.5x the data per user. Google wins. But Facebook is gathering $12.10 worth of user data, why should Google allow Facebook to have it? If Google wins that last morsel of data to take to market and takes out Facebook, Google can increase their gross revenue by 7%.

I’ve also heard people argue that Zuckerberg seems more personally avaricious, mean, or evil than Google’s founders, comparing Google’s marketing spin to “The Social Network”

Zuckerberg’s only newsworthy purchase was a $7m house in Palo Alto. Google co-founders were in the news over a lawsuit between them over whether their 767 “party plane” (Eric Schmidt) could house Brin’s California king bed. This is in addition to their 757 and two Gulfstream Vs they talked NASA into letting them park at Moffet under the pretense that the planes would be retrofit with instruments for NASA. When they couldn’t do that (FAA regs, who knew?), they bought a Dornier Alpha, but still get to park their jumbo jets and gulfstreams inside NASA hangers for some reason. Suck on that, Ellison!

Posted at 01:25:13 GMT-0700

Category: TechnologyVanity sites

Cordless Mice?

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 

Apparently the FAA has decided that cordless mice with their nanowatts of transmit power represent a risk to airplanes. Discussion forums contemplate that the FAA is concerned they could be used to trigger explosives in the hold (when they outlaw cordless mice, only outlaws will have cordless mice). Perhaps they found a cordless mouse that used a spark gap transmitter and so banned the whole class.

Cordless_Mouse.jpg

BTW, this is being posted via gogo inflight, the wireless radio on my laptop also uses 2.4ghz unregulated and could be 200mw and who knows who made it (same frequency band, 3 or 4 orders of magnitude more RF power).

networksonplane.png

While I’ve dealt with worse, I am on occasion reminded of just how awesome the air bureaucracy in this country really is.

On the plus side, the new digEplayers on the PS flights are pretty nice and a big improvement.  Plus they actually run on battery now.
Posted at 05:24:22 GMT-0700

Category: PlanesTravel