It does no good to edit maps in Map Maker, particularly if your edit includes data that has changed in the past two years. Google relies on DBpedia.org and NAVTEQ for mapping data, both of which can be two or more years old. If the edit you contribute doesn't match these "official" sources, your edit will be denied. Even if you manage to get an edit approved, some "Ape" will come along after you and revert it. I spent many hours improving Google Maps through Map Maker, until my local government assigned new E-911 addresses for my area and the Apes insisted they were wrong. These Apes were even so self-righteous in their refusal to accept empirical evidence that the changes I had submitted were actually correct. The Apes also do incredibly stupid things like displaying irrelevant, numerical magisterial district designations in place of city names. I completely gave up on Google Map Maker when a simple correction I submitted hadn't been approved after months of waiting. This was because the data from their "official" sources was outdated. Many more months later, it's still outdated! So, guess what? OpenStreetMap now pounces the shit out of Google Maps in my area!
My car, cell phone, modem and television all have to be certified as being standards compliant before I can use them to access public infrastructures. As a licensed amateur radio operator, I can build my own transmitting and receiving equipment to communicate on the ham bands. Any commercially produced transmitters--or even receivers--I use to access the public airwaves, however, must be type accepted by the FCC. There is no more public infrastructure than the internet. Why not petition the International Telecommunications Union to likewise require that commercially sold web browsers be minimally standards compliant? The rulemaking would be subject to the force of law by all existing ITU signatory nations, which is the entire world. "Innovation" would not be impeded, as commercial vendors could add whatever proprietary extensions they want, as long as their browsers were certified as standards compliant. Like ham radio operators, developers could do anything they want with browser code, but commercially sold products would have to be certified.
"Not many people can claim 'I conceived the use of a purpose-designed network employing packet switching in which the stream of bits is broken up into short messages, or 'packets', that find their way individually to the destination, where they are reassembled into the original stream.'" Not unless you're Owl Gore, of course!
Slashdot Mirror
It does no good to edit maps in Map Maker, particularly if your edit includes data that has changed in the past two years. Google relies on DBpedia.org and NAVTEQ for mapping data, both of which can be two or more years old. If the edit you contribute doesn't match these "official" sources, your edit will be denied. Even if you manage to get an edit approved, some "Ape" will come along after you and revert it. I spent many hours improving Google Maps through Map Maker, until my local government assigned new E-911 addresses for my area and the Apes insisted they were wrong. These Apes were even so self-righteous in their refusal to accept empirical evidence that the changes I had submitted were actually correct. The Apes also do incredibly stupid things like displaying irrelevant, numerical magisterial district designations in place of city names. I completely gave up on Google Map Maker when a simple correction I submitted hadn't been approved after months of waiting. This was because the data from their "official" sources was outdated. Many more months later, it's still outdated! So, guess what? OpenStreetMap now pounces the shit out of Google Maps in my area!
...can be found at www.newsmax.com and www.worldnetdaily.com.
My car, cell phone, modem and television all have to be certified as being standards compliant before I can use them to access public infrastructures. As a licensed amateur radio operator, I can build my own transmitting and receiving equipment to communicate on the ham bands. Any commercially produced transmitters--or even receivers--I use to access the public airwaves, however, must be type accepted by the FCC. There is no more public infrastructure than the internet. Why not petition the International Telecommunications Union to likewise require that commercially sold web browsers be minimally standards compliant? The rulemaking would be subject to the force of law by all existing ITU signatory nations, which is the entire world. "Innovation" would not be impeded, as commercial vendors could add whatever proprietary extensions they want, as long as their browsers were certified as standards compliant. Like ham radio operators, developers could do anything they want with browser code, but commercially sold products would have to be certified.
"Not many people can claim 'I conceived the use of a purpose-designed network employing packet switching in which the stream of bits is broken up into short messages, or 'packets', that find their way individually to the destination, where they are reassembled into the original stream.'" Not unless you're Owl Gore, of course!
Microsoft has DIVESTED their Inprise holdings. THIS IS OLD NEWS!