It's not overtly advertised as such but my collection started by looking up books that were banned at some time and then finding them on the gutenburg project and hosting them myself. I also have some books that I just thought were interesting and worth having.
UPenn has been directly some traffic my way from their banned book site here
Unless it's worth going bankrupt over and having a heck of a time getting financed for the next project, I'd say it's not a hard decision to risk losing some visitors in order to not go bankrupt. It's pretty pathetic when owners of a large site believe in the bandwidth fairy and fail to recognize they're the fairy. They're the ones paying for it.
It's time to either start putting some limits in place to get costs below revenue or to raise revenue. And if some visitors can't deal with it, then good riddence to them. You don't need a bunch of leechers driving you into bankruptsy. They obviously don't care about you so why worry about them?
If the MD5 of the two different strings that had the same SHA-1 value are different then there's no real reason to panic. For an added level of security you could also calculate the byte length of the data.
Software will just need to be updated to calculate two hashes. Good luck finding two sets of data that are different yet have the same length, the same SHA-1 hash and the same MD5 hash.
The Virtual Boy had a single column of LEDs and a vibrating mirror for each eye.
It looks like they've replaced LEDs with lasers and more of them.
I'm still waiting for cheap small (2" max in width/height) high resolution (640x480 min) LCD displays so we can finally hook up head mounted 3D displays to our next gen game consoles that have dual video out so you can hook one console up to two TVs for dual player action/wide screen action or to one pair of 3D glasses so we can view our 3D games in 3D.
How many companies keep track of where their visitors come from so they can properly credit the source? I'd say few to none.
So joe visitor visits my site and clicks through to the advertiser's page. With Pay Per Action, Joe Visitor must purchase the product right then in order for me to recieve credit. If Joe Visitor likes what he sees but decides to come back later after talking it over with Mrs Visitor, I don't get paid because he will inevitably go directly to the site rather than reload my site a bazillion times to find the ad so I get the credit for the referal.
There are plenty of Pay Per Action programs out there. They benefit the merchant far more than the ad publisher. If Google ever goes PPA I'm dropping their program. I did PPA with Commission Junction to a tune of 63,000 impressions, about a 1% click thru and $0 in the course of a year. With half the impressions on Google AdSense I made hundreds in the course of a month.
Only on the net do advertisers expect a direct return for every click of their stupid little ads. That's not how advertising works. Most money that goes into advertising is "wasted." People see the ads or get a free pencil but fail to actually buy any product. The net result of PPC and programs like AdSense is that overall everyone benefits more. Publishers have more incentive to display ads. And advertisers therefore have a much larger viewing audience.
Advertisers that are whining about AdWords need to go somewhere else instead of trying to turn AdSense into yet another worthless revenue tool for site owners.
Why would I send a lot of money on a Linux router when I can spend $30 on a hardware router that does everything I want with minimal space and energy usuage?
You can pick up a nice cheap perfectly sufficient router with NAT for around $30. I wouldn't trust any computer directly on the wire without a router. I don't care what OS it's running.
I'd like to be able to run internal services on my systems without having to mess around with restricting IPs at the app level. It's a lot easier to just open ports at the router level if I want outside people to connect to my service.
What came first? The egg the chicken came in or the thing that laid it? Or it's egg? And so on to the first creature that either was or was an egg.
There is nothing to refute. The argument that the egg came first assumes that evolution is true. Arguing that evolution is true because the egg came first is circular reasoning.
Even if the chicken as we know it came in an egg first, it does nothing to prove or disprove anything. Now we have to consider the creature that came before the chicken.
I had a private eye contact me because a young runaway teen (~15 yo) was using my e-mail services. I had previously enabled all logging (another fun story) and so I checked the logs, verified the story (I also found the kid listed on the missing and exploited children website) and tracked down where the kid was. I call up the private eye and not too long later the kid was returned home.
One could bitch about privacy but frankly the safety of child is a little more important. Nobody but me read any of the logs. All the PI got was an IP address that ended up verifying his hunch.
I think Google should consider the consequences of NOT using it's resources to save children.
If Google both refuses to offer up it's logs relevant to people searching for child porn AND refuses to do it's own investigations and reporting to the proper authorities then Google is allowing evil where they could easily do something about it.
And that quite simply is pathetic and I wouldn't be surprised if their stock continued to plummet. Instead of "Do No Evil" their motto would degrade to "Be Apathetic To Evil"
Sure the child porn people could do their searches elsewhere but with years of backlogs, it's a little late for a significant number of them. Google no doubt also has a cache of numerous child porn sites which could be used as evidence in trials.
The other fun story I mentioned earlier resulted in a dead end because I traced the alledged criminal to an ISP in the UK which refused to do anything about them. Later their account at the ISP was disabled so the authorities may have knocked some sense into them. In the meantime I had to call people up myself (I bet you can guess what was being stolen) and let them know what happened.
It would be pretty stupid of me to ignore the fact that people's information and SSN numbers were being stolen simply because of a privacy statement. I think people would rather not have their identity stolen when someone with a simple phone call could have prevented it or at least mitigated the damages.
Imagine brick and mortar stores allowing customers to commit criminal activity within their walls and then hiding them behind a privacy statement or defending their blindness to it because of a privacy statement. That is exactly what Google is doing. And it is indefensible. If you try to develop child porn photos at a store you will be reported by the store to the authorities. What makes Google so special? Right now they sound like every other company that doesn't care two cents about its customers.
Yes they have a lot more data making it more difficult to find the things I easily found but that's what the government is for.
Even if a file is in use you can still REN it to something else. Not sure if this works on 98 but on 2000 and XP it works. Generally I rename offending files to moo.txt or some variation thereof. They'll still be in use though so you can't delete them...yet.
Reboot, and whatever was trying to launch the program/dll/whatever will no longer be able to find the file. Now, that they're not in use you can delete all the moo.txt files.
The hard part is of course finding these files. But, once you know where they are, all you need is to command prompt to make them go away.
It's not that bad though if you think about it. The people that write this crapware probably have miserable pointless lives and go to bed with a different sheep every night.
Meanwhile, they just waste a bit of my time. If the knowledge that I had to put effort into getting rid of their shit gives them just a little bit of happiness, then that's the most I could do for them.
I posted a binary for mod_proxy_html at my site along with a how to on compiling it and was listed on Google's front page (currently number 5) within a week. It was a small project that a major aerospace company needed. They actually found my page through Google before we notified them it was there by e-mail.
Submitting the site to Google is a negative in their algorithm. Back when I had therabbithole.redback.inficad.com for my domain name Google found my site within a month.
You can't be successful in a vacuum. If you can't afford advertising and actually have a good site, then you join newsgroups and forums related to your site and become an active productive member. That's how my site got big initially. I linked to it in my sig on a major forum that I was active on.
Five years later I have a very large very diverse web-site and anything I post on it gets indexed (sometimes very highly) within a week. I'm currently one of the top results for Numa Numa Lyrics and Saaya Irie. It took less than a week for even Yahoo to put it at the number one result for the latter. It's since dropped a notch.
I think if you actually ran a site, you'd have a much better outlook on how Google and other major search engines operate. You don't have to spam anybody to get hits. You have to be proactive and useful. Oh yes, and patient.
making rediculous claims about which one is more efficient. I'm pointing out why the originally posted numbers are misleading.
I'm still trying to figure out why any moderators would have modded that FUD up considering how lacking it is in any information showing why there's a discrepency in the amount of bandwidth used.
Oh right, it's Slashdot. If the numbers justify they're world view then there's no need to question them.
The OP's numbers mean exactly nothing because he failed to say how many pages each bot had indexed or what they were.
Only if the actual size of the pages was less than the bandwidth used by the bot or if the bot repeatedly grabs the same page despite no changes, is the bot inefficient.
You can't just look at the bandwidth usage and make some claim about efficiency.
The first number is the number of pages, the second is the bandwidth as of the date at the end.
Googlebot indexed twice the number of pages and used 5 times the amount of bandwidth as MSN
WISENutbot just looking at raw numbers is the most efficient of the bots.
But that doesn't mean that Google is the least efficient bot. It simply means it's indexing larger pages. Like PDFs and such.
If you're going to spout off about bandwidth usage by bots it would help if you understood that bandwidth usage isn't the only number that goes into determining efficiency.
The first number is the number of pages for the month, the second is the bandwidth used for the month. WISENutbot indexed more pages than Google but used 1/6th the bandwidth.
Google indexed twice as many pages but used 9 times the bandwidth as MSN
Your numbers assume
a) all the bots indexed the same pages b) all the bots indexed the same number of pages
There's nothing unusual about bots not using the same amount of bandwidth. They're rarely indexing the same pages or the same amount of pages. They're on their own schedules.
Talk about Grade A FUD you're throwing around there.
Since Yahoo charges $5 per month per user, the RIAA would by the writer's logic, sue for the same. So if Joe Shmoe uploads a large amount of songs and 1000 people download at least one of them within a month, Mr Shmoe owes $5000 to the RIAA.
Of course the RIAA could also look to Apple and say they're worth $1 per song per user. In which case Mr Shmoe would owe $1 * 1000 * number of songs downloaded.
This assumes that the uploader tracks the number of users and downloads and can verify the information to the satisfaction of the courts. This is why the RIAA and MPAA sue for generally large piles of cash. It's a very rare pirate that tracks their user base as well as Apple and Yahoo and every other legitimate music downloading business. The pirate is then at the mercy of the courts to decide how much they owe if they don't just settle with the RIAA.
most likely because they want to maximize the value of adsense. If everyone were all talking about how much money they were making on AdSense people would start propping up pages to target the most lucrative ads (they do already). The value of those ads would then go down. As it is it's all a big mystery and so people for the most part don't consider AdSense when deciding what content to put on-line.
The other problem with talking about AdSense performance is that your success or failure a) can't be proven and b) could influence other's decisions to or not to market using Adsense. How well or not someone else's site is doing with AdSense has exactly zero to do with how well it will do on your site but people think it does anyway.
If Google took away the gag you'd have thousands of people bitching about how little their site is making and it would make Google look bad even though it has nothing to do with them. Sorry but your crappy little Geocities site isn't going to generate enough traffic to allow you to quit your day job. You'd also have people going on and on about how much they're making which would cause people to have unrealistic expectations.
Google wants entire control of the PR side of AdSense which is reasonable. It's how they pay the bills and make investors happy.
they exist to make money. And you can't make money under the GPL if enough people out there don't want you to. It only takes one to make your GPL product free for everyone with no possibility of legal recourse.
"Its not always about money"
With business, it's always about money.
The GPL may not guilty of price fixing but it's most definitly the worst business model ever.
"perhaps they are using the code in-house, and see the benefit of getting the "many eyes" of others working on it, saving their company money in the process"
You'd have to talk to companies like Adobe about that. They're closed source and are swimming in money from products that got out and are still years ahead of their open source counterparts.
Simply because the products exist to make money and so they can hire talent and time. Rather than sitting back and hoping a few people care enough to donate their time and eventually the product might be of some quality.
"Strange how all these attacks on the gpl, groklaw, etc., come just as LongHorn totally fails to wow everyone. Coincidence? Probably not."
Oh yes, I'm sure MS is behind all these attacks. Evil Bill is secretly plotting away. It couldn't possibly be because some people actually have a strong dislike for the GPL and would like to see it go away.
I don't care about Longhorn because Windows 2000 does everything I need it to do. Windows 98,2000, XP and other versions have satisfied all the needs of millions of people for years. Unless Longhorn introduces some spectactular functionality that 2K,XP etc don't provide, it makes sense there won't be a massive movement towards it. I have no plans to upgrade to XP.
I highly doubt I'm unique in my reasons for not caring much about Longhorn.
The author of this module charges 50 British pounds for the binary. However, since he released it under the GPL anybody (including myself) can compile and undersell the author. In my case I decided to go with the price of free.
On top of that, since I only supply the win32 binary, I offer everything you need to know to compile the module yourself. This way you can get the latest source (if my copy happens to be out of date) and compile it yourself and still save 50 British pounds.
The only reasons this author is still being paid for a binary from him are
a) people don't know you can get it for free b) people want to support the author c) people are afraid that my version is "tainted" d) people can't compile the module themselves e) people think my version is out of date
An effective way to destroy the income flow of a GPL author is to advertise, ensure it's not tainted, make it unnecessary to have to compile, and keep it up to date.
That leaves only those people who want to support the author.
This is why the GPL is a terrible way to make a living. If you release it under the GPL it can be sold for less than the author's asking price by anyone. The authors do all the work and everyone else in the world can profit from it or simply remove the possibility of the author to make a decent amount.
It took less than two weeks for my mod_proxy_html page to show up on Google on the front page right under the author's page.
The GPL quite simply fixes the price at 0 and there's nothing the author can do about it except change their license agreement.
Key phrase there. "Evening and Morning" define the period which "day" is talking about.
Funny how everyone who talks about the definition of "day" fails to address that part of the verses.
Mormons try to account for "evening and morning" by claiming it's talking about the time between evening and morning on Kalob (think that's the name of God's home planet) which is 1000 years of evenings and mornings on earth. It comes from the idea that "A day to God is as a thousand years."
Mormons also have the parent poster's explanation which fails simply because they focus on the wrong part of the verse.
People who can't understand where the literal 6 days comes from simply havn't done enough research on the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.icarusindie.com/Literature/Library/
. html
It's not overtly advertised as such but my collection started by looking up books that were banned at some time and then finding them on the gutenburg project and hosting them myself. I also have some books that I just thought were interesting and worth having.
UPenn has been directly some traffic my way from their banned book site here
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books
Maybe this is Google's feeble attempt at making up for suppressing speech elsewhere in the world.
Let's see, go bankrupt or alienate some visitors.
Unless it's worth going bankrupt over and having a heck of a time getting financed for the next project, I'd say it's not a hard decision to risk losing some visitors in order to not go bankrupt. It's pretty pathetic when owners of a large site believe in the bandwidth fairy and fail to recognize they're the fairy. They're the ones paying for it.
It's time to either start putting some limits in place to get costs below revenue or to raise revenue. And if some visitors can't deal with it, then good riddence to them. You don't need a bunch of leechers driving you into bankruptsy. They obviously don't care about you so why worry about them?
You could see sheets of uncut $100 bills in one of the photos taken in the region.
1
http://www.kxma.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=3597
If the MD5 of the two different strings that had the same SHA-1 value are different then there's no real reason to panic. For an added level of security you could also calculate the byte length of the data.
Software will just need to be updated to calculate two hashes. Good luck finding two sets of data that are different yet have the same length, the same SHA-1 hash and the same MD5 hash.
The Virtual Boy had a single column of LEDs and a vibrating mirror for each eye.
It looks like they've replaced LEDs with lasers and more of them.
I'm still waiting for cheap small (2" max in width/height) high resolution (640x480 min) LCD displays so we can finally hook up head mounted 3D displays to our next gen game consoles that have dual video out so you can hook one console up to two TVs for dual player action/wide screen action or to one pair of 3D glasses so we can view our 3D games in 3D.
How many companies keep track of where their visitors come from so they can properly credit the source? I'd say few to none.
So joe visitor visits my site and clicks through to the advertiser's page. With Pay Per Action, Joe Visitor must purchase the product right then in order for me to recieve credit. If Joe Visitor likes what he sees but decides to come back later after talking it over with Mrs Visitor, I don't get paid because he will inevitably go directly to the site rather than reload my site a bazillion times to find the ad so I get the credit for the referal.
There are plenty of Pay Per Action programs out there. They benefit the merchant far more than the ad publisher. If Google ever goes PPA I'm dropping their program. I did PPA with Commission Junction to a tune of 63,000 impressions, about a 1% click thru and $0 in the course of a year. With half the impressions on Google AdSense I made hundreds in the course of a month.
Only on the net do advertisers expect a direct return for every click of their stupid little ads. That's not how advertising works. Most money that goes into advertising is "wasted." People see the ads or get a free pencil but fail to actually buy any product. The net result of PPC and programs like AdSense is that overall everyone benefits more. Publishers have more incentive to display ads. And advertisers therefore have a much larger viewing audience.
Advertisers that are whining about AdWords need to go somewhere else instead of trying to turn AdSense into yet another worthless revenue tool for site owners.
Why would I send a lot of money on a Linux router when I can spend $30 on a hardware router that does everything I want with minimal space and energy usuage?
You can pick up a nice cheap perfectly sufficient router with NAT for around $30. I wouldn't trust any computer directly on the wire without a router. I don't care what OS it's running.
I'd like to be able to run internal services on my systems without having to mess around with restricting IPs at the app level. It's a lot easier to just open ports at the router level if I want outside people to connect to my service.
What came first? The egg the chicken came in or the thing that laid it? Or it's egg? And so on to the first creature that either was or was an egg.
There is nothing to refute. The argument that the egg came first assumes that evolution is true. Arguing that evolution is true because the egg came first is circular reasoning.
Even if the chicken as we know it came in an egg first, it does nothing to prove or disprove anything. Now we have to consider the creature that came before the chicken.
Ben
http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/laserpr ojectorscellphones.php
E xhibList/Letter=L
"Light Blue Optics will be demonstrating the miniature PVPro evaluation kit at the 3GSM World Congress in Barcelona, February 13-16 2006."
http://www.3gsmworldcongress.com/page.cfm/action=
Their press releases say they'll be there. The official site of the 3GSM World Congress doesn't list them.
...just build a giant shield to block the sun?
I had a private eye contact me because a young runaway teen (~15 yo) was using my e-mail services. I had previously enabled all logging (another fun story) and so I checked the logs, verified the story (I also found the kid listed on the missing and exploited children website) and tracked down where the kid was. I call up the private eye and not too long later the kid was returned home.
One could bitch about privacy but frankly the safety of child is a little more important. Nobody but me read any of the logs. All the PI got was an IP address that ended up verifying his hunch.
I think Google should consider the consequences of NOT using it's resources to save children.
If Google both refuses to offer up it's logs relevant to people searching for child porn AND refuses to do it's own investigations and reporting to the proper authorities then Google is allowing evil where they could easily do something about it.
And that quite simply is pathetic and I wouldn't be surprised if their stock continued to plummet. Instead of "Do No Evil" their motto would degrade to "Be Apathetic To Evil"
Sure the child porn people could do their searches elsewhere but with years of backlogs, it's a little late for a significant number of them. Google no doubt also has a cache of numerous child porn sites which could be used as evidence in trials.
The other fun story I mentioned earlier resulted in a dead end because I traced the alledged criminal to an ISP in the UK which refused to do anything about them. Later their account at the ISP was disabled so the authorities may have knocked some sense into them. In the meantime I had to call people up myself (I bet you can guess what was being stolen) and let them know what happened.
It would be pretty stupid of me to ignore the fact that people's information and SSN numbers were being stolen simply because of a privacy statement. I think people would rather not have their identity stolen when someone with a simple phone call could have prevented it or at least mitigated the damages.
Imagine brick and mortar stores allowing customers to commit criminal activity within their walls and then hiding them behind a privacy statement or defending their blindness to it because of a privacy statement. That is exactly what Google is doing. And it is indefensible. If you try to develop child porn photos at a store you will be reported by the store to the authorities. What makes Google so special? Right now they sound like every other company that doesn't care two cents about its customers.
Yes they have a lot more data making it more difficult to find the things I easily found but that's what the government is for.
by switching to CSS which saved them as much as 15% on their HTML usage.
But they're still trying to save even more money by reusing articles which allows for higher compression rates.
Even if a file is in use you can still REN it to something else. Not sure if this works on 98 but on 2000 and XP it works. Generally I rename offending files to moo.txt or some variation thereof. They'll still be in use though so you can't delete them...yet.
Reboot, and whatever was trying to launch the program/dll/whatever will no longer be able to find the file. Now, that they're not in use you can delete all the moo.txt files.
The hard part is of course finding these files. But, once you know where they are, all you need is to command prompt to make them go away.
It's not that bad though if you think about it. The people that write this crapware probably have miserable pointless lives and go to bed with a different sheep every night.
Meanwhile, they just waste a bit of my time. If the knowledge that I had to put effort into getting rid of their shit gives them just a little bit of happiness, then that's the most I could do for them.
Who breeds these people? Seriously.
I posted a binary for mod_proxy_html at my site along with a how to on compiling it and was listed on Google's front page (currently number 5) within a week. It was a small project that a major aerospace company needed. They actually found my page through Google before we notified them it was there by e-mail.
Submitting the site to Google is a negative in their algorithm. Back when I had therabbithole.redback.inficad.com for my domain name Google found my site within a month.
You can't be successful in a vacuum. If you can't afford advertising and actually have a good site, then you join newsgroups and forums related to your site and become an active productive member. That's how my site got big initially. I linked to it in my sig on a major forum that I was active on.
Five years later I have a very large very diverse web-site and anything I post on it gets indexed (sometimes very highly) within a week. I'm currently one of the top results for Numa Numa Lyrics and Saaya Irie. It took less than a week for even Yahoo to put it at the number one result for the latter. It's since dropped a notch.
I think if you actually ran a site, you'd have a much better outlook on how Google and other major search engines operate. You don't have to spam anybody to get hits. You have to be proactive and useful. Oh yes, and patient.
It's not just a restriction, the disk won't be able to be decoded by the player without proper authentication.
It'll be like trying to play a regular DVD using a DVD player without DECSS.
It's not a matter of the format of the DVD. It's simply a matter of changing the encryption key for the data on the disk.
Now part of that key would be your fingerprint or something.
making rediculous claims about which one is more efficient. I'm pointing out why the originally posted numbers are misleading.
I'm still trying to figure out why any moderators would have modded that FUD up considering how lacking it is in any information showing why there's a discrepency in the amount of bandwidth used.
Oh right, it's Slashdot. If the numbers justify they're world view then there's no need to question them.
The OP's numbers mean exactly nothing because he failed to say how many pages each bot had indexed or what they were.
Only if the actual size of the pages was less than the bandwidth used by the bot or if the bot repeatedly grabs the same page despite no changes, is the bot inefficient.
You can't just look at the bandwidth usage and make some claim about efficiency.
MSNBot is playing catchup and so it's indexing more. At least for some people.
I posted other numbers for May. These are for April
Googlebot 3819 238.15 MB 30 Apr 2005 - 22:58
WISENutbot 3330 42.33 MB 30 Apr 2005 - 23:59
MSNBot 1900 43.60 MB 30 Apr 2005 - 21:37
Inktomi Slurp 875 19.75 MB 30 Apr 2005 - 23:40
The first number is the number of pages, the second is the bandwidth as of the date at the end.
Googlebot indexed twice the number of pages and used 5 times the amount of bandwidth as MSN
WISENutbot just looking at raw numbers is the most efficient of the bots.
But that doesn't mean that Google is the least efficient bot. It simply means it's indexing larger pages. Like PDFs and such.
If you're going to spout off about bandwidth usage by bots it would help if you understood that bandwidth usage isn't the only number that goes into determining efficiency.
WISENutbot 1866 20.45 MB
Googlebot 1797 124.28 MB
MSNBot 923 14.41 MB
Inktomi Slurp 658 15.96 MB
The first number is the number of pages for the month, the second is the bandwidth used for the month. WISENutbot indexed more pages than Google but used 1/6th the bandwidth.
Google indexed twice as many pages but used 9 times the bandwidth as MSN
Your numbers assume
a) all the bots indexed the same pages
b) all the bots indexed the same number of pages
There's nothing unusual about bots not using the same amount of bandwidth. They're rarely indexing the same pages or the same amount of pages. They're on their own schedules.
Talk about Grade A FUD you're throwing around there.
Since Yahoo charges $5 per month per user, the RIAA would by the writer's logic, sue for the same. So if Joe Shmoe uploads a large amount of songs and 1000 people download at least one of them within a month, Mr Shmoe owes $5000 to the RIAA.
Of course the RIAA could also look to Apple and say they're worth $1 per song per user. In which case Mr Shmoe would owe $1 * 1000 * number of songs downloaded.
This assumes that the uploader tracks the number of users and downloads and can verify the information to the satisfaction of the courts. This is why the RIAA and MPAA sue for generally large piles of cash. It's a very rare pirate that tracks their user base as well as Apple and Yahoo and every other legitimate music downloading business. The pirate is then at the mercy of the courts to decide how much they owe if they don't just settle with the RIAA.
that having a license automatically makes you a good driver.
most likely because they want to maximize the value of adsense. If everyone were all talking about how much money they were making on AdSense people would start propping up pages to target the most lucrative ads (they do already). The value of those ads would then go down. As it is it's all a big mystery and so people for the most part don't consider AdSense when deciding what content to put on-line.
The other problem with talking about AdSense performance is that your success or failure a) can't be proven and b) could influence other's decisions to or not to market using Adsense. How well or not someone else's site is doing with AdSense has exactly zero to do with how well it will do on your site but people think it does anyway.
If Google took away the gag you'd have thousands of people bitching about how little their site is making and it would make Google look bad even though it has nothing to do with them. Sorry but your crappy little Geocities site isn't going to generate enough traffic to allow you to quit your day job. You'd also have people going on and on about how much they're making which would cause people to have unrealistic expectations.
Google wants entire control of the PR side of AdSense which is reasonable. It's how they pay the bills and make investors happy.
they exist to make money. And you can't make money under the GPL if enough people out there don't want you to. It only takes one to make your GPL product free for everyone with no possibility of legal recourse.
"Its not always about money"
With business, it's always about money.
The GPL may not guilty of price fixing but it's most definitly the worst business model ever.
"perhaps they are using the code in-house, and see the benefit of getting the "many eyes" of others working on it, saving their company money in the process"
You'd have to talk to companies like Adobe about that. They're closed source and are swimming in money from products that got out and are still years ahead of their open source counterparts.
Simply because the products exist to make money and so they can hire talent and time. Rather than sitting back and hoping a few people care enough to donate their time and eventually the product might be of some quality.
"Strange how all these attacks on the gpl, groklaw, etc., come just as LongHorn totally fails to wow everyone. Coincidence? Probably not."
Oh yes, I'm sure MS is behind all these attacks. Evil Bill is secretly plotting away. It couldn't possibly be because some people actually have a strong dislike for the GPL and would like to see it go away.
I don't care about Longhorn because Windows 2000 does everything I need it to do. Windows 98,2000, XP and other versions have satisfied all the needs of millions of people for years. Unless Longhorn introduces some spectactular functionality that 2K,XP etc don't provide, it makes sense there won't be a massive movement towards it. I have no plans to upgrade to XP.
I highly doubt I'm unique in my reasons for not caring much about Longhorn.
Mod Proxy HTML with Binary for free
The author of this module charges 50 British pounds for the binary. However, since he released it under the GPL anybody (including myself) can compile and undersell the author. In my case I decided to go with the price of free.
On top of that, since I only supply the win32 binary, I offer everything you need to know to compile the module yourself. This way you can get the latest source (if my copy happens to be out of date) and compile it yourself and still save 50 British pounds.
The only reasons this author is still being paid for a binary from him are
a) people don't know you can get it for free
b) people want to support the author
c) people are afraid that my version is "tainted"
d) people can't compile the module themselves
e) people think my version is out of date
An effective way to destroy the income flow of a GPL author is to advertise, ensure it's not tainted, make it unnecessary to have to compile, and keep it up to date.
That leaves only those people who want to support the author.
This is why the GPL is a terrible way to make a living. If you release it under the GPL it can be sold for less than the author's asking price by anyone. The authors do all the work and everyone else in the world can profit from it or simply remove the possibility of the author to make a decent amount.
It took less than two weeks for my mod_proxy_html page to show up on Google on the front page right under the author's page.
The GPL quite simply fixes the price at 0 and there's nothing the author can do about it except change their license agreement.
Key phrase there. "Evening and Morning" define the period which "day" is talking about.
Funny how everyone who talks about the definition of "day" fails to address that part of the verses.
Mormons try to account for "evening and morning" by claiming it's talking about the time between evening and morning on Kalob (think that's the name of God's home planet) which is 1000 years of evenings and mornings on earth. It comes from the idea that "A day to God is as a thousand years."
Mormons also have the parent poster's explanation which fails simply because they focus on the wrong part of the verse.
People who can't understand where the literal 6 days comes from simply havn't done enough research on the matter.