Slashdot Mirror
BBC Buys Google News Keywords In Kelly Case
foreign devil writes "BBC has purchased keywords related to coverage of the Hutton Inquiry in an attempt to direct all traffic to their special news coverage. This would be only moderately interesting, except the BBC is complicit in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier. The article in the Guardian says this is coming out of the GBP 63.5m ad budget. I wonder how much it would cost them if someone, say, automated searching for those links on Google." It doesn't seem fair to pronounce the BBC complicit in Kelly's death (unless that's proven by the facts of the case), but it's certainly an interested party.
can someone explain what that all means? i mean, im not too dumb, but i seem to be out of the loop, and i think im not the only one. so for all the ignorant bastards out there like me, could someone clear this up?
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
toaster,toaster toaser, do you have toast in you yet i think
so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Im not a toaster!!!!!!!!!!And one more
thing........YOUR A TOASER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND A COOKIE WITH MILK SOAGE
MILK!!!!!!!!!!AND A BUTT WITH POOP IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"alledgedly"
Ben
Work Safe Porn
this should shed some light on the story
The scary part about this is it is an electronic form of Newspeak. If you can't FIND something on the web through a search engine, then it technically DOESN'T EXIST. Sure: you might know intuitively of other articles on (subject), but if the wealthy powers that be who are impacted by (subject) buy all the possible references to (subject) then it makes it nearly impossible to research (subject) in any rational manner. This Is Bad. Very extra special bad. Logically extend it. Microsoft (or any other transnational pigfucker) buys all references to Microsoft, Windows, etc. (orwhatever the transnational pigfucker's upset about) and routes all inquiries to their website. This is NOT a good thing. Google should be prevented from doing this in the interest of the common good. they may be "just a corporation looking at the bottom line" but their decisions have political impact, and being typical geeks, they don't want to "go there". But they really need ot take responsibility for their actions and remove this feature of their system. The implications are stupefying. RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I've never heard of this, don't pay attention to goings on in the BBC, and don't care to RTA.
---------
George W. Bush in 2004!
What new thought does Kerry bring?
Roses are red
Violets are blue
In Soviet Russia
Poems write you
Berrik
Current karma: Terrible (due to mods without a sense of humor)
Its called historical fact. Documented, historical fact. Have you heard of Mexico, Korea, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama (and much of Central America)? Ask people that live in these places about US terrorism. Or even our very own Native Americans, hmm were we at "war" with them. Damn, too bad because apparently then we would have been totally justified in slaughtering entire races of people, to suit our greedy-ass ever expanding needs. I mean, we should have been at war, after all, they were living on OUR property and using OUR natural resources. Just like those damn Iraqi's holding all of our oil under their sand. And if you think this war was not about oil, then your head is in the sand. Read a book or two that you were not allowed to read in high school. Now, one can argue with the meaning of documented facts, but one cannot refute their existence. OK, whatever, one can do whatever the hell one wants, but it does tend to make one look silly and ignorant to deny what plainly exists.
every time a republican dies a queer angel gets his wings
Everything is commercial now, I hate search engines. If you search for technical details about a product, 99% of the sites point to a shopping site. You have to search -shop -shopping -buy -sale -. In this case, if you want to do research on that story, you get one link to BBC. It is annoying as hell. A search engine should be made where every site in the database is verified and none of them are shopping sites, or sites that have paid to be the first link in the search result. The Internet was designed for information to be shared and easily accessible, but now it is very hard to find the information you want because everybody is trying to sell you something. It is annoying! The more a search engine becomes popular (e.g.: Google [which is now a verb]) the worst it is going to get because the company behind it cares more about the paper with the presidents than good search results. Some of us, programmers, which read Slashdot need to create a search engine where information sites and shopping sites are separated. I'm sure funding can be found out there since many more people/companies are frustrated about where search engines go.