You're confusing the academic definition of journalism with regular old journalism. The press does not require ethical guidelines or standards (have you ever heard of FoxNews?) Broascasting or publishing news is journalism. They are the press by every legal definition. What was published was absolutely news, if it weren't, we wouldn't be discussing it now, would we?
You know the NY Times has these published, too, right? Are they not the press?
If it wasn't free speech, the politicians would be taking direct action against Wikileaks. But, since it is absolutely protected by the constitution, they've resorted to speaking out and pressuring others.
It is NOT an attack on our country, the only things revealed in those documents are things we did ourselves. Revealing guilt is not an attack.
Thanks for avoiding the question a fourth time by giving another completely, totally irrelevant answer. I never asked about MS. I never once said anything about owning 100% of anything having anything to do with any of this.
Ego over-reaches. Ego makes mistakes. Ego is not to be trusted.
Which is exactly why the released all of the cables. Only a completely deluded egotist would think they know better and decide that the cables they think are important are the only ones anyone could find important.
Just because nothing in, say, the National Enquirer is important to me doesn't mean it's not important to a lot of people. There's no reason I should be the one to decide whether or not it's published.
A note that says "Meet me at the Circle K at 11" doesn't seem important. If you found one, you'd throw it away. No one would be interested in it, it's completely worthless.
Unless the Circle K got robbed at 11. Then it's incredibly important. You don't know when something seemingly innocuous might become important, so publishing them all was the right thing to do.
If it was illegal, why hasn't the justice department issued an indictment for Julian Assange? Or perhaps gone after Wikileaks itself? It's all been political sabre rattling, because wikileaks itself is completely legal, they can't do anything else.
Wikileaks should sue Paypal over this, they have unilaterally declared wikileaks illegal with no charges having been filed. They are directly violating their contract for service. Amazon's terms had some wiggle room, but Paypal is just full of shit.
This absolutely stinks of backroom political pressure.
Location. Building an 80 story building in Pigsknuckle, Arkansas might cost $700/ft^2, building it in Manhattan will cost a lot more that that. The piece of land it's on is incredibly valuable even if there were no building on it.
I have mod points, but for some reason it won't let me mod the summary as troll.
There have been some bias in articles before, but this one goes off the hook. A scumbag company lies to everyone and scams them, but it's all the environmentalists fault for falling for the same scam everyone else did?
Wow! By acting superior, you have proved the error of my ways. How could I be so wrong? Your refusal to explain the difference between monopoly and monopsony in response to your own unproven and unexplained claim that Google is a monopoly clears everything up, and was incredibly wise, as the several semesters of Economics classes and half dozen books I've read on the subject would have made it a totally unnecessary effort on your part to read the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article on monopoly. I see now that every single complaint by every single company needs to be investigated and said investigation must be publicly announced, because no company has or would ever complain about something frivolous that is not illegal or wrong in any way, shape or form, and ask for remedies that would cripple the internet. A properly filed complaint of legal activity MUST be exhaustively researched, because it was properly filed, you see. The claims contained are completely irrelevant, if the paperwork's done right, even claims of Company X's wearing blue t-shirts on Wednesday hurting Company Z's profits, we must shout out that we are investigating and follow through.
Thank you, thank you, a million times THANK YOU! Your brief statements of denial were far superior to my well reasoned, fact based paragraphs of information and logic.
Thanks to you, I've completely changed my mind now - Google should be shot.
I'm not the one who linked to a 4 year old article. If you have current costs, post.
Chips and storage get cheaper, Power supplies, cases, cables, wiring, labor, marketing, etc. don't. They might be making a profit on them still, but they just as easily might not.
Order of search results on one of hundreds of search engines is not an antitrust issue. Antitrust has no reason to be involved in an open, free market with widespread competition and no barrier to entry. The remedy requested is the EU government forcing change of the links and order of the links on websites, which would be a nightmare. It does not matter at all which company is being investigated, the nature of this claim makes it ridiculous to investigate.
And either explain how Google is monopoly, or stop using the word, because you don't seem to understand it.
Why is everyone acting like page ranking should be anything but whatever Google wants them to be? They are free to use whatever they wish to determine the search results. If they decide to never show Hotmail when you search for email, there is absolutely nothing wrong, ethically or legally, with this. They are free to shun a competitor. They are free to put you last on every search if they just simply don't like you. They can put whatever they want into the search results, in whatever order they wish, with whatever advertisements they want, and it is legally and morally fine.
If their results start to suck, then people will switch to a different search engine, as has already happened once. There are dozens of competitors, any one of which will gladly take Google's place as the top search engine. The market will decide. The only possible result of these "investigations" is the government stepping in and telling a website not only what it must link to, but the order it must link them in, and that's just not a sane proposition. Every site that isn't first of second in the results would jump on that bandwagon. Search engines would become nearly useless, returning crappy sites who were the last to sue before the ones we'd want to see.
Has everyone forgotten that Yahoo used to be number 1, with more market share than Google has now? That they lost the #1 spot because Google's results were better? That all of this was a result of word of mouth? Why is there a sudden assumption that this couldn't happen again?
Search results should, and really must, be whatever the company provides them wishes them to be. The consequences of anything else lead to an internet you would not want to be on.
There is. It's called the market, and they are rated #1. If their results start to suck, then people will switch to a different search engine, as has already happened once.
OK, so tell me which areas are they a monopoly, and explain how they are a monopoly in those areas. You've claimed it twice now with no explanation. I've given rock solid proof why they are not a monopoly. Look up monopoly before you post, because I'm pretty sure you don't know what one is.
I can file a formal, proper complaint that you don't have my name tatooed across your forehead. That does not mean it should be investigated. I'm not saying Google should be given any benefit of the doubt or even consulted in this. There is no legal or rational reason for the complaint. There is no crime, no violation of any statute or reason this deserves even a first look.
If you accept every single thing in the complaint as fact there is still no grounds for any kind of antitrust action. It's an attempt by one company to FORCE another to not only link to their website (which they already do), but also change the order it presents the links. There is no way to justify it, it's not a rational claim, and it's one search engine out of hundreds; there is no way antitrust should be involved.
There is no possible outcome of this going forward that has sane results.
A picture might be worth a thousand words, but a few words are worth a thousand informational videos. With rare exceptions, it's about the slowest form of information transfer. Does this project have a website?
From your linked articles, they made $75 on each Xbox360 when the price was $399. They now sell for $199. I don't think they're still making money on each.
Getting free gas would require tapping into the gas lines before the meter or tampering with the meter, both are property of the gas utility. It is impossible to modify a boiler to get free gas.
Yes. Google is not a monopoly in any way, shape, or form. They have dozens to hundreds of competitors for everything they offer. If you never use Google, your life will not change in any way, on- or off-line. There is nothing to prevent anyone from entering the market. They don't control any market. Look up what a monopoly actually is - Google has exactly zero of the elements for a monopoly.
Being popular is NOT grounds for an antitrust investigation. A company whining they aren't tops in Google's results should be ignored. Do I get the FTC investigating Apple if my band's song isn't shown first when you open iTunes? Can I use the courts to force you to link to my site on your blog? Does Slashdot need to publish all MS marketing material to be fair? Why should CrapNewsRehash.com be any different on Google?
This is just pure crap. Do you really think the EU should be involved in telling private companies not only who they need to link to on their website, but the order they need to put it in as well? I wouldn't want to be on that internet.
Yes, if they are put on the correct car, and there are many cars that can do so. What they're doing is announcing passenger car tires that are specified to handle 400 MPH, which no passenger car can currently do.
They are not a monopoly in any way, shape or form. There are dozens of competitors that are available for every single one of Google's products. They have created no barrier to entry into any of their markets. There is no reason anyone needs to use any of their products, and you can never use a Google product once in your life and it will not change your on- or off-line activities at all.
You don't need it, there's dozens of competitors widely available for every one of it's products, and no one is forced to use Google or to do business with Google. There are exactly zero elements of a monopoly. They're just popular, and jealousy abounds in the corporate world.
Why wouldn't Google push their own products to the front of search results? Are they barred from doing what we would expect from every other company in the world to do? Why is this investigated? Why does anyone consider this illegal, amoral, or wrong in any way? They can't promote their own products on their own website - Why the hell not?
They are not a nonprofit impartialsearch.org, they're not the government shoving this down our throats, they're a large corporation that is completely optional to use. There is no reason to expect their own products not to be first in every related search. There are Google logos on every page - it's not deceptive, you know who is providing this information. There is nothing illegal or wrong about this in any way, shape or form. It's companies with crappy products that lose money politicking/suing Google because they have money - That is the total sum of these stories. There's no rights violations, illegal activities or sketchy dealings here, just unmitigated greed and a failed political/legal system.
If Google didn't do this, if you searched for "Email" on Google and the first result was Hotmail, everyone would think they're complete idiots - employees, users, advertisers and competitors.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confusing the academic definition of journalism with regular old journalism. The press does not require ethical guidelines or standards (have you ever heard of FoxNews?) Broascasting or publishing news is journalism. They are the press by every legal definition. What was published was absolutely news, if it weren't, we wouldn't be discussing it now, would we?
You know the NY Times has these published, too, right? Are they not the press?
If it wasn't free speech, the politicians would be taking direct action against Wikileaks. But, since it is absolutely protected by the constitution, they've resorted to speaking out and pressuring others.
It is NOT an attack on our country, the only things revealed in those documents are things we did ourselves. Revealing guilt is not an attack.
Platoon. And Wall Street. Seriously, he was on quite a roll for about 8 months in 1986.
Everything else was crap, though.
Thanks for avoiding the question a fourth time by giving another completely, totally irrelevant answer. I never asked about MS. I never once said anything about owning 100% of anything having anything to do with any of this.
5th time:
Why is Google a monopoly?
Which is exactly why the released all of the cables. Only a completely deluded egotist would think they know better and decide that the cables they think are important are the only ones anyone could find important.
Just because nothing in, say, the National Enquirer is important to me doesn't mean it's not important to a lot of people. There's no reason I should be the one to decide whether or not it's published.
A note that says "Meet me at the Circle K at 11" doesn't seem important. If you found one, you'd throw it away. No one would be interested in it, it's completely worthless.
Unless the Circle K got robbed at 11. Then it's incredibly important. You don't know when something seemingly innocuous might become important, so publishing them all was the right thing to do.
If it was illegal, why hasn't the justice department issued an indictment for Julian Assange? Or perhaps gone after Wikileaks itself? It's all been political sabre rattling, because wikileaks itself is completely legal, they can't do anything else.
Wikileaks should sue Paypal over this, they have unilaterally declared wikileaks illegal with no charges having been filed. They are directly violating their contract for service. Amazon's terms had some wiggle room, but Paypal is just full of shit.
This absolutely stinks of backroom political pressure.
Location. Building an 80 story building in Pigsknuckle, Arkansas might cost $700/ft^2, building it in Manhattan will cost a lot more that that. The piece of land it's on is incredibly valuable even if there were no building on it.
I have mod points, but for some reason it won't let me mod the summary as troll.
There have been some bias in articles before, but this one goes off the hook. A scumbag company lies to everyone and scams them, but it's all the environmentalists fault for falling for the same scam everyone else did?
Wow! By acting superior, you have proved the error of my ways. How could I be so wrong? Your refusal to explain the difference between monopoly and monopsony in response to your own unproven and unexplained claim that Google is a monopoly clears everything up, and was incredibly wise, as the several semesters of Economics classes and half dozen books I've read on the subject would have made it a totally unnecessary effort on your part to read the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article on monopoly. I see now that every single complaint by every single company needs to be investigated and said investigation must be publicly announced, because no company has or would ever complain about something frivolous that is not illegal or wrong in any way, shape or form, and ask for remedies that would cripple the internet. A properly filed complaint of legal activity MUST be exhaustively researched, because it was properly filed, you see. The claims contained are completely irrelevant, if the paperwork's done right, even claims of Company X's wearing blue t-shirts on Wednesday hurting Company Z's profits, we must shout out that we are investigating and follow through.
Thank you, thank you, a million times THANK YOU! Your brief statements of denial were far superior to my well reasoned, fact based paragraphs of information and logic.
Thanks to you, I've completely changed my mind now - Google should be shot.
I'm not the one who linked to a 4 year old article. If you have current costs, post.
Chips and storage get cheaper, Power supplies, cases, cables, wiring, labor, marketing, etc. don't. They might be making a profit on them still, but they just as easily might not.
Order of search results on one of hundreds of search engines is not an antitrust issue. Antitrust has no reason to be involved in an open, free market with widespread competition and no barrier to entry. The remedy requested is the EU government forcing change of the links and order of the links on websites, which would be a nightmare. It does not matter at all which company is being investigated, the nature of this claim makes it ridiculous to investigate.
And either explain how Google is monopoly, or stop using the word, because you don't seem to understand it.
Why is everyone acting like page ranking should be anything but whatever Google wants them to be? They are free to use whatever they wish to determine the search results. If they decide to never show Hotmail when you search for email, there is absolutely nothing wrong, ethically or legally, with this. They are free to shun a competitor. They are free to put you last on every search if they just simply don't like you. They can put whatever they want into the search results, in whatever order they wish, with whatever advertisements they want, and it is legally and morally fine.
If their results start to suck, then people will switch to a different search engine, as has already happened once. There are dozens of competitors, any one of which will gladly take Google's place as the top search engine. The market will decide. The only possible result of these "investigations" is the government stepping in and telling a website not only what it must link to, but the order it must link them in, and that's just not a sane proposition. Every site that isn't first of second in the results would jump on that bandwagon. Search engines would become nearly useless, returning crappy sites who were the last to sue before the ones we'd want to see.
Has everyone forgotten that Yahoo used to be number 1, with more market share than Google has now? That they lost the #1 spot because Google's results were better? That all of this was a result of word of mouth? Why is there a sudden assumption that this couldn't happen again?
Search results should, and really must, be whatever the company provides them wishes them to be. The consequences of anything else lead to an internet you would not want to be on.
There is. It's called the market, and they are rated #1. If their results start to suck, then people will switch to a different search engine, as has already happened once.
OK, so tell me which areas are they a monopoly, and explain how they are a monopoly in those areas. You've claimed it twice now with no explanation. I've given rock solid proof why they are not a monopoly. Look up monopoly before you post, because I'm pretty sure you don't know what one is.
I can file a formal, proper complaint that you don't have my name tatooed across your forehead. That does not mean it should be investigated. I'm not saying Google should be given any benefit of the doubt or even consulted in this. There is no legal or rational reason for the complaint. There is no crime, no violation of any statute or reason this deserves even a first look.
If you accept every single thing in the complaint as fact there is still no grounds for any kind of antitrust action. It's an attempt by one company to FORCE another to not only link to their website (which they already do), but also change the order it presents the links. There is no way to justify it, it's not a rational claim, and it's one search engine out of hundreds; there is no way antitrust should be involved.
There is no possible outcome of this going forward that has sane results.
A picture might be worth a thousand words, but a few words are worth a thousand informational videos. With rare exceptions, it's about the slowest form of information transfer. Does this project have a website?
He was recorded in his own home by a person who had no warrant to do so. It's illegal to secretly film inside someone else's house.
From your linked articles, they made $75 on each Xbox360 when the price was $399. They now sell for $199. I don't think they're still making money on each.
This analogy is horrible and completely wrong.
Getting free gas would require tapping into the gas lines before the meter or tampering with the meter, both are property of the gas utility. It is impossible to modify a boiler to get free gas.
This situation in not analogous in any way.
Yes. Google is not a monopoly in any way, shape, or form. They have dozens to hundreds of competitors for everything they offer. If you never use Google, your life will not change in any way, on- or off-line. There is nothing to prevent anyone from entering the market. They don't control any market. Look up what a monopoly actually is - Google has exactly zero of the elements for a monopoly.
Being popular is NOT grounds for an antitrust investigation. A company whining they aren't tops in Google's results should be ignored. Do I get the FTC investigating Apple if my band's song isn't shown first when you open iTunes? Can I use the courts to force you to link to my site on your blog? Does Slashdot need to publish all MS marketing material to be fair? Why should CrapNewsRehash.com be any different on Google?
This is just pure crap. Do you really think the EU should be involved in telling private companies not only who they need to link to on their website, but the order they need to put it in as well? I wouldn't want to be on that internet.
Actually, that is just a "Oh crap my paper needs to be 6 pages long and it's only 4" version of what I said.
Yes, if they are put on the correct car, and there are many cars that can do so. What they're doing is announcing passenger car tires that are specified to handle 400 MPH, which no passenger car can currently do.
They are not a monopoly in any way, shape or form. There are dozens of competitors that are available for every single one of Google's products. They have created no barrier to entry into any of their markets. There is no reason anyone needs to use any of their products, and you can never use a Google product once in your life and it will not change your on- or off-line activities at all.
You don't need it, there's dozens of competitors widely available for every one of it's products, and no one is forced to use Google or to do business with Google. There are exactly zero elements of a monopoly. They're just popular, and jealousy abounds in the corporate world.
Add this to your Adblock Plus filter:
||facebook.*$domain=~facebook.com|~127.0.0.1
What like button?
You can still use facebook, but they're blocked from any page that isn't facebook.com.
Why wouldn't Google push their own products to the front of search results? Are they barred from doing what we would expect from every other company in the world to do? Why is this investigated? Why does anyone consider this illegal, amoral, or wrong in any way? They can't promote their own products on their own website - Why the hell not?
They are not a nonprofit impartialsearch.org, they're not the government shoving this down our throats, they're a large corporation that is completely optional to use. There is no reason to expect their own products not to be first in every related search. There are Google logos on every page - it's not deceptive, you know who is providing this information. There is nothing illegal or wrong about this in any way, shape or form. It's companies with crappy products that lose money politicking/suing Google because they have money - That is the total sum of these stories. There's no rights violations, illegal activities or sketchy dealings here, just unmitigated greed and a failed political/legal system.
If Google didn't do this, if you searched for "Email" on Google and the first result was Hotmail, everyone would think they're complete idiots - employees, users, advertisers and competitors.
Stupid new mod system. I tried to mod insightful, but missed and hit redundant. Post to undo.
They need to release an updated graphics package for Adventure. I can't wait to play this game as a high definition square block.