Slashdot Mirror

If that is the whole problem, why not rename the https protocol to "secure"?

I personally don't think it's a bad idea to make secure:// an alias of https://./ The only problem would be that just using https does not tell anything about the connections actual security.

There is no need for the Government to do any such testing.

Exactly.
Google is already crowd sourcing this filtration of the algorithmically selected results. They are doing this in response to spammers and page rank manipulators that scrape content or links, drape it with ads and foist it into google search results via a monstrous network of links pointing to it.

Google added the Blocked Site Feature which lets you add these sites to your personal block list. You can remove blocks either permanantly or turn off blocking temporarily for specific search sessions.

Then they algorithmically harvest everybody's block list, and potentially add those sites to another spam algorithm. Clearly if 50% of searchers add Obama's campaign site to their block list Google can't automatically block it. On the other hand, useless screen scraper sites that get blocked by .5% of searchers probably do get spam blocked. That's where the human review comes in.

On your Google.com Blocking preferences page: https://www.google.com/reviews/t page it clearly states

Sites will be blocked only for you, but Google may use everyone's blocking information to improve the ranking of search results overall.

I block all the useless site scrapers I can find.

There is no need for the Government to do any such testing.

Exactly.
Google is already crowd sourcing this filtration of the algorithmically selected results. They are doing this in response to spammers and page rank manipulators that scrape content or links, drape it with ads and foist it into google search results via a monstrous network of links pointing to it.

Google added the Blocked Site Feature which lets you add these sites to your personal block list. You can remove blocks either permanantly or turn off blocking temporarily for specific search sessions.

Then they algorithmically harvest everybody's block list, and potentially add those sites to another spam algorithm. Clearly if 50% of searchers add Obama's campaign site to their block list Google can't automatically block it. On the other hand, useless screen scraper sites that get blocked by .5% of searchers probably do get spam blocked. That's where the human review comes in.

On your Google.com Blocking preferences page: https://www.google.com/reviews/t page it clearly states

Sites will be blocked only for you, but Google may use everyone's blocking information to improve the ranking of search results overall.

I block all the useless site scrapers I can find.

Guy Fawkes Makup almost as good as a mask on some people.

Europe has tons of cities which aren't planned like that (hell, London too!) and Asia even more

I think lack of city planning is pretty much universal. Look at this map which was even more retarded before they closed the rail road crossing on Hiland. Cross the tracks and you're not on Highland any more, you're on Iles... for two blocks, then you're on East Oberlin for five blocks, and it ends on 11th street.

On top of that there are little traffic laws and/or people don't follow them so closely. You drive carefully and defensively, not aggressively. You consider other drivers too. Also, when stopped at lights all the motorbikes go around the cars to get to the front...

I think they pretty much addressed those concerns with their testing. It's not like the car's going to be blindly following a map and GPS like some idiot humans do (often to the point of driving into a river or over a cliff). An self-driving car will be far safer than a human-driven one just for the reasons you pointed out that they wouldn't.

many places you also cannot see if someone is coming behind a corner. You honk to let them know.

I'm pretty sure the horn will still be accessible to you. I'm also pretty sure you don't have a clue how these self-driving cars work in the first place, judging from your comment.

I would like to add, there are cities/areas that do have a 'looks like a bowl of spaghetti' lay out to them in the us: Schenectady, NY. Granted there's a number of 'gridded' sections as parts were built and/or replaced, but it's quite the maze and getting from point A to point B requires a map if you haven't been there before.

Naturally, these same rules won't be applied to the gubbamint.
Anyone wearing a mask is up to no good.

Besides, most popular apps on mobile devices are fetching information from websites anyway

The top grossing apps are without question games

I have been working on making a game for mobile myself (yes, shameless plug) and I can tell you first hand that making anything beyond tic tac toe on html5 for mobile is crazy talk.

First time I've ever seen the "copyright isn't theft" argument used in a discussion of child porn.

I'll brag a little, I beat him by 4 hours.

the analogy breaks down if you're looking at the photo as property, and the viewing of the photo as "stealing" the child's image for sexual purposes

If we're going there, why not go full retarded and claim that taking a photograph of someone steals their soul.

I believe it is simply wrong, both morally (via "gut") and legally (via research) to view child pornography with the intent of gaining sexual gratification in some form

In the moral sense I agree with you; in the legal sense I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't think I agree.

I'm thinking of the 10 year old girl having her life and psyche wrecked so some damaged mind can rub out that quick one

The first half of that statement is tragic, I'll agree, but I don't agree with the "so [that]" connection you made between it and the last half.

Well, one cannot prove a negative, but look at this:
    http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/edu/privacy.html
which includes the statement:
No advertising to students, faculty, or staff. We offer Google Apps for Education to schools for free. It's also completely ad-free -- which means your school's content is not processed by Google's advertising systems.

Because in most cases, Google is mining all those accounts for data and showing ads. In some cases, students may be involved with research that includes confidential data. Google does not provide guarantees that they won't mine/archive or protect that data in accordance with laws/regulations surrounding that data.

Some excerpts from: http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/edu/privacy.html :

• The Google Apps Terms of Service contractually ensures that your institution (or students, faculty, and staff) are the sole owners of their data.
• No advertising to students, faculty, or staff. We offer Google Apps for Education to schools for free. It's also completely ad-free -- which means your school's content is not processed by Google's advertising systems.
• We don't look at your content. Google employees will only access content that you store on Apps when an administrator from your domain grants Google employees explicit permission to do so for troubleshooting.
• The controls, processes and policies that protect user data in our systems have obtained a SSAE 16 Type II attestation and will continue to seek similar attestation.
• Google complies with applicable US privacy law, and the Google Apps Terms of Service can specifically detail our obligations and compliance with FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) regulations.
• Google is registered with the US-EU Safe Harbor agreement, which helps ensure that our data protection compliance meets European Union standards for educational institutions.

Google's actual policy for edu seems to completely contradict your claims about it.

Google trends has this to say about the "Chemophobia" rage...

Your terms - chemophobia - do not have enough search volume to show graphs.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.
Try viewing data for all years and all regions.

Although... Biebermania seems to be maintaining nicely. http://www.google.com/trends/?q=biebermania&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0

I'm on the faculty committee evaluating this option for my small liberal arts college. For us, it's a no brainer:
a) We get a significantly better user experience than our existing software. You call Google "minimally acceptable quality", but its availability, user interface, storage, spam filtering, and speed are significant improvements over what we have. You might be able to install a homegrown service that's better than Google, but we can't afford to hire you. The administration is asking our IT department to do more with less, not more with more.
b) The amount of cost savings for a small institution like us is huge. Our IT department has a technical staff of 6 people. One of them spends the majority of his time managing email. Switching to Google frees up 10-15% of our tech staff person-hours.
c) While our college legal staff is looking carefully at the details, so far we're satisfied with the privacy issues. The privacy policy for Google Apps for Education is significantly stronger than your ordinary Gmail account: see here. We believe that unauthorized privacy violations are *less* likely with Google than with a privately hosted system, because Google has a formal procedure for privacy control, and is too big to care about our content. (The on-campus IT guy has something to gain by reading the Provost's email. But Google doesn't give a shit about campus politics.) The parent post worries specifically about bribery and intimidation: I guarantee you a Google engineer is far more expensive to bribe/blackmail than our local sysadmin.
d) Almost all of our users are using Gmail for their private communications anyway, to set up underage drinking parties, drug deals, and casual sex. If you ask them whether they trust Google to manage their conversations with professors about overdue assignments, they look at you like you're an idiot.

My UCSD outsourced-to-google email actually has the standard Google privacy policy on it!

That policy is overridden by the contract with UCSD. Why was it shown to you? Because you ate using a standard Gmail interface that can not identify which contract you are subject to. Does UCSD have a portal like the Univ of Hawaii? Using that portal may solve the browser data mining issue.

The "planar" process was based on the original patent for the integrated circuit itself. That fundamental innovation was patented by Robert Noyce of Grinnell, Iowa. Hoerni was one of Noyce's "Congregation". My mistake was in conflating the refinement with the fundamental innovation.

stop saying throwback. throwback is a marketing term coined by cola companies and snack food conglomerates to gin up their respective markets and attract new customers to the same unhealthy vapid product theyve sold for 50 years.

Nope, though abused by those companies, "throwback" is a word that's been around a very long time. Taking a gander at Google's Ngram viewer shows the term in use back to the early 1800's. Other sources indicate it's origin as being 1855 or 1888.
 

second, until makerbots start employing millions of people in well paid, safe factory conditions with competitive pay and honest retirement options, theres absolutely zero equivalent measure between a CnC factory that gets a building permit and a tax break from the city of brooklyn and the 1960's manufacturing explosion that dominated the northeast and ushered in american prosperity for hundreds of millions of people.

Wait, what? By the 1960's, the "explosion" in the Northeast was over - and manufacturers there were already feeling the cold touch of winter as production (and consumers) fled to other part of the country and overseas to avoid rising land and labor costs. Manufacturing was running on inertia not "exploding".

If counterfeiting tens of millions a year = war then I think the US Federal Reserve has declared war on the USA. ;). http://www.google.com/search?q=federal+reserve+trillions

Note: when the Federal Reserve loans money, money is typically created - AFAIK nobody's bank balances goes down - what happens is devaluation of the currency.

Yes I know there's a legal difference between what the FR and NK do, but still...

I'd like to be able to show my daughter that I'm not just making this stuff up, that models in magazines really don't look like that in real life

http://www.google.com/search?q=photoshop+models+before+after&tbm=isch

^ not few of these look absolutely gorgeous in raw state, and icky after photoshopping. Just bleh. I think fashion is for idiots, period... so I'd say "simply" teach your daughter not to be an idiot; but don't bother with the various strands of idiocy too much, because it's impossible to keep track of them all. Good luck.

I also go back that far, and I believe it's an anachronism. We called them VAXes back then, not VANen. They *xen meme smells more 1990s than 1970s

Here are about 25 usenet posts from 1981 that use the term VAXen.

But even if there were some were calling them VAXen back then it's still wrong. It's just bad English.

My high-school english teacher, who was awarded state english teacher of the year on more than one occasion, taught his classes that "Language creates environment and environment creates language" - in other words, correct usage is defined by nothing more than whatever enough people say is the correct usage. And we had a cluster of microvaxen at my high-school too.

Why do electronic voting systems seems to have so many problems?

I think the employ of Occam's Razor would be quite useful here. There is an un-holy appeal to any designer of such a machine to be able to artificially control the output. We already have the CEO of Diebold publicly promising to deliver votes to George W. Bush, so any protestation of "naw, people who build these things are so trustworthy, nobody would ever actually think to rig an election by deliberately designing a machine to do so.

My very first thought when I read this rigamarole about how the software conveniently malfunctioned to create new votes was, "oh, my god, what a complete bullshit explanation. Overheating CPUs do not malfunction so specifically as to merely add valid data to the processes they are executing. They STOP WORKING COMPLETELY when they overheat, as anyone who has ever spent even a year working with them would know.

So, I'm calling bullshit immediately, and after being fed an incredibly stupid lie about why these machines generated extra votes, I'm inclined to believe the very fucking worst possible alternative explanation. Why else would someone make up such a fucking ridiculous fib?

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=whole+house+surge+protector&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=2095718605650227831&sa=X&ei=_syqT7vTOKm62wWN7eymAg&ved=0CPcBEPMCMAE

That is one of the best made. If you want to waste more money, look at the snake oil sold by http://www.richardgrayspowercompany.com/

Nothing is better than the above Leviton unit for surge protection.

Does it really matter? The amount of effort required to look into ONE person in footage is huge. Stop being so paranoid everyone. If they looked at footage of me they would see a guy walking down the street..WOW. sometimes I think people are concerned over things like this far to much. Just live your life and chill out!

Yea, it's not like there's advanced recognition software they could be using; nor does the military ever, I dunno, mistake cameras for guns and blow away innocent journalists.

Ignorance is Strength

Try this

This is the GPL working as intended.

Yes, it is... and I'm not complaining, just pointing out that it's frustrating.

I don't say for a second that it's a failing of the GPL - it is indeed working as intended - I just don't particularly agree with the intention.

This is the whole point of the GPL, so you don't take someone else's work, derive something off it, then distribute the derived product in a less free way. Your payment as such for using GPL software is that if you distribute something based on it (however small) you pay the community back by distributing your source.

That's what I really don't like... the "however small" part. I write code both professionally and privately. If I choose to release something under an open licence, I avoid the GPL precisely because I know how much it's going to frustrate others in similar situations to myself. I'd far rather release my code under the LGPL, thereby ensuring the freedom of that bit of code and keeping the possibilities open for enhancements from the community but not forcing other people to open code that isn't in the slightest bit related.

If you don't want to do that, consider contacting the original author and working out a proprietary license deal, so the original author gets something (such as money) in lieu of the source code to something that extends his library.

Honestly, it's usually more work to do all that than to simply do that bit of code my own way or find another bit under a more permissive licence. I'd really LIKE to have the chance to do something like that but it's impractical under most cases. Remember that I'm talking "small bits of code" and not large complex projects. Something that I can write myself in two days isn't worth the hassle of working out licensing deals... but conversely, being able to use it straight off the bat saves me two days (do that 10 times and I've knocked a month off my project).

To give a real world example, in some of my Windows .NET projects, I make use of this IP Address control which is under the MIT Licence. I could have written it myself in a matter of a few days (with debugging/error-checking), but it saved me those few days work to use the existing code.

It would clearly be nonsensical to licence my entire Windows app under the GPL just because I wanted to use that control (which would be the only legal option if it were GPL licensed). And for that control, if it were GPL licenced, I wouldn't take the time to organise a licensing deal with the developer, because the effort of doing so would far outweigh simply writing an identical control myself.

Now, you might (quite rightly) answer that most people who release such small things don't do so under the GPL for precisely this reason. These sorts of things are almost always BSD/MIT/LGPL and so on. However, what if this was a part of a bigger project and didn't exist anywhere else. I notice in a big GPL project that they're doing one little thing that I'd like to copy from them. My app has nothing in common with the big GPL project other than this one little thing (like an IP address control for example). I can't use it. I have to re-write it myself. And that is what is frustrating.

AT&T was a government monopoly, and gov't destroyed around 3000 telephone providers to hand over the entire industry to AT&T

Probably this sort of thing gets boring after some days having to look at this machine...

Why don't you ask the hot girls who have to go back and forth through the scanners while they call a few more people over to have a look, "just to be sure".

Or the pedophiles who've been arrested while in the employ of the TSA.

Just because you don't mind, or you think you'd get bored, doesn't mean everybody else feels the same.

I hope that people and privacy advocates would look at Google Analytics too. It is basically the same CarrierIQ is, only made for webpages. And Google has been abusing it for almost 10 years already.

No it isn't...it isn't even close to the same thing. CarrierIQ was capturing keystrokes, even though they said otherwise. CarrierIQ was something you could not block or neuter all all, unlike Google Analytics. A subset of what CarrierIQ does is slightly similar to what Google Analytics does, if instead of allowing the cellular carrier to diagnose mobile device issues you think in terms of a website owner looking at the traffic patterns within their own site, but that's not the subset that anyone cares about. And Google Analytics is NOT a decade old. This function used to be served by companies like Websense and other early SAAS providers that did analytics on 'stickiness' and figuring out which pages users were most likely to be at when they left a site. The analytics are provided for the site owner, so that they can look at how traffic patterns demonstrate the effectiveness of their site. Furthermore, the way Google does it supports using an "A/B" approach to site improvement (pick up this month's copy of Wired magazine to learn more about that), whereby you give random users slightly different versions of the same site and compare the results to see which is more effective...and that is HUGELY helpful.

Nor is Google Analytics 'abuse'. How do we know this? Because privacy advocates HAVE been looking at it.

I know, I know...it's suprising to find out that privacy organizations have been looking at a small boutique shop like Google; it's easy to think you were ahead of the curve with such a far-reaching idea as "hey, let's look at Google's handling of privacy matters!" Guess you just got to the idea a few minutes behind the very most bleeding-edge, eh? :)

Learn what something is before you get on a soapbox about how awful it is or how it's used. Here you go, here's a link. It was really hard to find, too.

Actually, here's a book that says just that: that climate change is a vehicle by which ideas, characters and projects can be organized around and propelled by. The author says that we should ask not what we can do for climate change, but what climate change can do for us. He says that the myth transcends the science.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=why+we+disagree+about+climate+change

It's so blatant, it would be funny if it weren't so sad.

I think the DHS should allow folks to pay to have their own avatars for screening. It would raise millions! And there are plenty of choices! and of course there are these.

I think the DHS should allow folks to pay to have their own avatars for screening. It would raise millions! And there are plenty of choices! and of course there are these.

that's around $234 a piece, for that amount you can get a netbook with better specs compared to olpc

I thought the same thing, but they have a program where the children learn how to replace motherboards and LCDs in the olpc.. Can't do that with a dell netbook, and I'm sure the kids appreciate them more when they realize they'll have to replace the screen themselves if they slam it against a wall. Besides an olpc is a bit more robust than a walmart netbook, I'd compare it more to a toughbook then a normal netbook and you can't buy a new toughbook for anywhere near $200

Scarlett Johansson in her cat suit -full screen.

I rest my case.

......

Yes sir. Needs a BIG screen.

Scarlett Johansson in her cat suit -full screen.

I rest my case.

Give'm a reason to go to the theater assholes! Then they won't pirate the movies - you fucking dicks!

The facts are not what you think.

About 3000 competitors were destroyed by the gov't to give AT&T its monopoly.

http://www.google.com/m?q=multiplayer+oblivion+mod&client=ms-opera-mini-iphone&channel=new

Multiplayer-oblivion was fun on a vanilla install-perhaps a friendly coder/modder could COBLize it to work with all mods-transferring graphics and meshes on the fly. Or even if the modlist load-order needs to be identical for all players on the LAN. IIRC it could be "configured" to transmit more variables to each computer but it's been a while since i looked at it.

Disclosure: nearly 4000 game-hours spent in Bethesdas Universe-3000 of them in Oblivions Cyrodiil and about 1800 of those hours spent running Oldblivion for game performance on OLD hardware. About 50 hours were devoted to trying out Multiplayer Oblivion Mod but differing mod lists and bashfiles were enough to confuse the mod.

Daggerfall is free online for a legal elder scrolls fix and runs with dosbox quite nicely. Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim often come up for sale on steam and each has its own charms and quirks as well as active mod communities.

Google

I just looked at http://www.google.com/ and there appears to be no way to drill down within a Yahoo!-style directory. Google is a search engine, and search engines need keywords. Google is good for finding information about things that have a single name that is well known to anybody who knows that a topic exists, such as "Xfce" or "supply side economics", not so much for finding things with scads of synonyms. How would the user know what keywords to use in Google in order to 1. learn for the first time that Kubuntu or Xubuntu exists and 2. discover how to install it?

And if you're not technologically savvy enough to query the abundant technical communities online

By "query" do you mean something automated, or do you mean registering and posting on forums? A lot of people aren't patient enough to lurk on a given forum for a week in order to get a sense of what is acceptable or not acceptable to post.

then you probably don't even know or care about what XFCE is anyway.

They don't want "Xfce" by name; they just want a solution to UI frustrations that they experience on the default install of Ubuntu. They might want "an environment that works similarly to the familiar environment that I learned while using another computer". Or they might want "a more responsive start menu". Or they might want "a way to use the full width of a 1024x600 netbook display or an old 1024x768 monitor for a web browser without the launcher popping up and covering the back button".Or they might want "an environment that shows the menu bar all the time without mystery meat navigation". (Even Mac OS, which has had a global menu bar since Mac OS V in August 1987, doesn't auto-hide the menu bar.) Such problems are a bit harder to search for. If the solution happens to be Xfce, then we need to ensure that newbies know that Xfce exists so that they don't associate their frustrations with "Linux" as a whole.

Yet it is not a problem for Google, because it violates the AdSense program policies, which are strictly enforced. This is an area where Adscend failed.

Adscend is hired as the advertising company, and their "affiliates" are basically subcontractors. How this would have actually played out in court is unknown. It would depend on the contractual agreements made between the "affiliates" and Adscend, particularly an indemnity clause, as well as Adscend's knowledge of the "likejacking", policies against it or other illegal advertising means, and enforcement of such policies.

Dude, AdSense users are not called "affiliates", they're called "users". "Affiliate" presumes a different degree of closeness.

What makes you think they need a patent for Pagerank? They can make Pagerank function with and without a patent. Have they stopped anyone else from doing their own equivalent to pagerank and will they ever? no. They explicitly said "we welcome competition". - http://www.google.com/competition/

We believe in choice. When it comes to search, competition is always just a click away.

Google has been one of the few actually involved in the common good at this rate.

Nice try though.

You might have missed the protests he triggered in Afghanistan:

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=afghanistan+protests+koran+burning+florida+2011&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=jSQ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=7hepT9PyBYec8QSq97we&ved=0CAsQpwUoAA

I'm sorry, but are you mad "people" acted violent because he called people violent.

You might have missed the protests he triggered in Afghanistan:

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=afghanistan+protests+koran+burning+florida+2011&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=jSQ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=7hepT9PyBYec8QSq97we&ved=0CAsQpwUoAA

I think that indicates overvoltage. The lifetime of incandescents is proportional to V^-16 (no, this is not a typo), so a 20% overvoltage will reduce there lifetime by a factor of 20. In CFLs, you can correct for this in the electronic circuit.

They want people to wear Google Goggles which will give your data to Google.

Did you miss the fact that there are no "Google Goggles"? How can "they" want people to wear Google Goggles when they don't exist?

Did you miss the fact that there are "Google Goggles"? Have a look here. Guess what El Goog does with all those crummy pixel streams coming thru those shaky phone'cum'webcams? Right.

The original comment talks about "people wearing Google Goggles", which meant, to me, they were referring to the concept "Google Glasses" that Google announced recently. One does not "wear" Google Goggles.

We both were using the wrong name for "Google Glasses".

You are right, "Google Goggles" already exist.

I don't think "don't use the internet" is a reasonable suggestion just if you want to avoid Google's spying. And aside from how stupid suggestion that is, it doesn't just include internet anymore. Google is driving around the world and photographing everyones life with their cars.

How is one snapshot of a public roadway "photographing everyone's life"?

They want people to wear Google Goggles which will give your data to Google.

Did you miss the fact that there are no "Google Goggles"? How can "they" want people to wear Google Goggles when they don't exist?

Did you miss the fact that there are "Google Goggles"? Have a look here. Guess what El Goog does with all those crummy pixel streams coming thru those shaky phone'cum'webcams? Right.

You cannot anymore escape Google by just not using their services. Even if you don't use them, someone else will make data about you available to Google.

And, even if this were true, how is this Google's fault?

We need to regulate these things before it gets out of hand. And in fact many countries with stricter privacy laws have (like most of Europe), but Google just ignores them and pay the fines they might get.

[citation needed]

They know they will eventually make much more money by openly abusing now so they can establish it all.

Panic! Emergency! The sky is falling and Google is to blame!!!!!!1111! Wow, hyperbole much?

is a replacement for one of these. Newer houses/apartments put 'em in the bathrooms with 4 of them on the vanity. That's at least 160 watts. I'd like to cut that at least in half.

Well, I, for one, support Google.

They are in the business to sell advertising. If you do not buy advertising, then you have probably never paid a dime directly to Google.

Advertising isn't all they sell.

Your premise, and thus subsequent theory, is flawed.

Well, I, for one, support Google.

They are in the business to sell advertising. If you do not buy advertising, then you have probably never paid a dime directly to Google.

Advertising isn't all they sell.

Your premise, and thus subsequent theory, is flawed.

Well, I, for one, support Google.

They are in the business to sell advertising. If you do not buy advertising, then you have probably never paid a dime directly to Google.

Advertising isn't all they sell.

Your premise, and thus subsequent theory, is flawed.

Well, I, for one, support Google.

They are in the business to sell advertising. If you do not buy advertising, then you have probably never paid a dime directly to Google.

Advertising isn't all they sell.

Your premise, and thus subsequent theory, is flawed.

The ironic thing here is that Google has themselves copyrighted many of their APIs and only give access to them if you pay them. For example, Google Search API.

I pretty sure you are paying for use of the implementation of the API. Not the API itself.