This is *not* Google's internet. What people do on their own webpage is their own damn business. Who gives a flying flip if it's "against Google's rules"? I believe the site is hosted in the United States, and last I checked, in most of those states, the 1st Amendment still applies.
How is what was done any worse than a googlebombing, or any other "abuse" of Google's indexing criteria? This technique is not new. This technique IS NOT the same or similar to e-mail spam. Perhaps Google needs to work on its ranking criteria. Like most tech companies, when they were small they embraced the hackers, now that they're big they and their fanboys seem to be about to begin attacking them.
Matt has spent more time working on the Wordpress project than most of these whiners spend masturbating, which is a lot. It's sad that his work and recognition has made him a target of these leeches.
A mistake in judgement, among many months of doing things right, was made. It was nothing more than a P.R. error. I wish people would just grow up and deal with it. Threatening to boycott a free product is just stupid.
". . . rights of the students to use the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum in the privacy of their own apartment are obviously being regulated . .."
Well, sort of. I think what they are really regulating is what you connect to their physical network, which I don't think the FCC would oppose at all. If you want to be an ass and assert your "rights" in this matter, then I think that you would be entitled to operate your wireless device as long as it remains unconnected to their network.
(This is marginally off topic but needs to be said.)
I used to think the same thing. However, after a drawn-out argument with a lawyer friend of mine, she has me convinced that they can "search" you. The first reason they can is that a business can take "reasonable" measures to prevent theft. You're going to have a hard time proving that just looking in your bag on the way out is unreasonable. Also, did you know about their policy of checking bags before you entered their store? That's a form of implied consent. If you've been through their routine before and do it again, you've given up any right to not be searched by them.
Personally, when I go to Fry's I just walk at a normal pace out the door. If there's a line at the pink marker station I just walk out (waiting in line twice is unreasonable I think). If they ask me to stop and submit to a bag check (thereby immediately moving me to the front of the line) I will. I don't think they would invest money in paying the door monitor if they didn't think it saved them money in the long run. What costs (or saves) a business money ends up costing (or saving) the customer money.
p.s. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. . .
Slashdot Mirror
This is *not* Google's internet. What people do on their own webpage is their own damn business. Who gives a flying flip if it's "against Google's rules"? I believe the site is hosted in the United States, and last I checked, in most of those states, the 1st Amendment still applies.
How is what was done any worse than a googlebombing, or any other "abuse" of Google's indexing criteria? This technique is not new. This technique IS NOT the same or similar to e-mail spam. Perhaps Google needs to work on its ranking criteria. Like most tech companies, when they were small they embraced the hackers, now that they're big they and their fanboys seem to be about to begin attacking them.
Matt has spent more time working on the Wordpress project than most of these whiners spend masturbating, which is a lot. It's sad that his work and recognition has made him a target of these leeches.
A mistake in judgement, among many months of doing things right, was made. It was nothing more than a P.R. error. I wish people would just grow up and deal with it. Threatening to boycott a free product is just stupid.
These have been around for years. Why is this news? They are not legal for general use in the US.
It looks like somebody took my "freshman" comment a little too personally. :-)
Well, sort of. I think what they are really regulating is what you connect to their physical network, which I don't think the FCC would oppose at all. If you want to be an ass and assert your "rights" in this matter, then I think that you would be entitled to operate your wireless device as long as it remains unconnected to their network.
You freshmen are funny. . .
"You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada"
:-)
Prior art?
Yes, but they've been promising this for literally years now. Don't hold your breath.
But still no (real) sync yet. Enough said. Get with the program, Danger.
I used to think the same thing. However, after a drawn-out argument with a lawyer friend of mine, she has me convinced that they can "search" you. The first reason they can is that a business can take "reasonable" measures to prevent theft. You're going to have a hard time proving that just looking in your bag on the way out is unreasonable. Also, did you know about their policy of checking bags before you entered their store? That's a form of implied consent. If you've been through their routine before and do it again, you've given up any right to not be searched by them.
Personally, when I go to Fry's I just walk at a normal pace out the door. If there's a line at the pink marker station I just walk out (waiting in line twice is unreasonable I think). If they ask me to stop and submit to a bag check (thereby immediately moving me to the front of the line) I will. I don't think they would invest money in paying the door monitor if they didn't think it saved them money in the long run. What costs (or saves) a business money ends up costing (or saving) the customer money.
p.s. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. . .