You're looking at things from the wrong perspective. As an end user, doing google searches, sure. I can go anywhere I want. But there is no incentive for me to do so because none of googles competitors can.. well.. compete. But, as a site owner, I can't just wave my hand and have everyone searching for things relavent to my site use a different search engine.
If I want my site to get used, I *HAVE* to appease google. Getting blacklisted or low ranked is equivelant to, for example, Orson Wells being blackballed by Hurst and forced into obscurity for many years.
Google isn't king because they have a better product. They're king because they have better DATA, from 10 years of data mining, something a startup company simply can't compete with.
Where, exactly, did I say I wanted to dictate how they rank their pages? I didn't.
What I did say was that google has an imperfect algorithm, and along with punishment for trying to get around that imperfect algorithm, creates a situation where they dictate the rules, and the punishment for not following them.
Personally, I would have no problem with google if a) their algorithm were fair and indexed all kinds of content b) they didn't 'punish' sites for trying to level the playing field or c) there was some viable compeition to google so that market forces could compensate.
It's this "follow our rules or be punished" attitude that's disturbing.
That's really the point. You have three choices. a) design in the google dictated way. b) design however you like, and if your rank suffers, use tools like this (ie, cheat) or c) design however you like, and if your rank suffers, wallow in self pitty and obscurity.
Given those choices, most honest people would choose a, while dishonest would choose b... next to nobody would choose c.
You mean, just like anyone can start a software company to compete with Microsoft?
Monopoly power means they control the market. There are barriers to entry which make it difficult to compete. Among those barriers is that they already have a large user base, not to mention petabytes of indexed and cached content from many years of operation. Just to catch up to where google is now would take a competitor many years, and google would not be standing still.
Google is driving its competition out of business, and there will only be "one true search engine" by the time it's all done. Oh sure, there will be tons of Alta Vista's and Excites and Hotbots, but they simply won't be relavent. If we're lucky, there will be companies that provide different ways to view the google data, sort of an ask jeeves built on a google API, but that's about it, and since google will control the data, they will also control those companies.
Make no mistake, google is already dangerously powerful. You just don't see it yet.
The reason google should be obligated is because of the great power they wield. Much like Microsoft and other Monopolies have to work extra hard to play fair. I don't know if google could yet be classified as a monopoly, but i think they're damn close given that Yahoo has basically thrown in the towel to them.
I'm not talking about spamming. I'm talking about sites having to conform to google's whims in order to appear anywhere near the top of a google search. I'm talking about legitimate sites, not even sites selling anything. Sites that simply choose to design their sites in one way or another can have their google rank turned to crap. Google now commands so much power that you are largely FORCED to appease google if you want your site to be discovered by anyone.
Yeah, i'm being overly melodramatic. But the point is clear, if you don't do what google wants, your rank suffers. THAT is power.
Oh, I agree with you that this is an inherant problem with search engines; the inability to index certain kinds of sites. My point is that google should not be "punishing" companies that choose to design their site a specific way, and then "cheat" to get around problems with search engine technology.
Google should be trying to solve the problems with indexing these kinds of content, not enforcing that sites follow a method they CAN index.
Except, of course, that the competition is starting to be driven out of business. Even Yahoo has decided they can't compete with Google. Microsoft seems to be the only company even trying anymore.
I think you misunderstand the argument. My argument is not that Google is or isn't doing anything illegal, but rather that they are, by virtue of their overpowering presence in the market (so much so that even Yahoo has given up trying to beat them, and the term "googling" has become synonymous with web searching) means that any rules they put in place that effect web sites page rank should be fair and not arbitrary.
Unfortunately, Google has taken the route that pure text sites that make heavy use of semantic tags get better ranks than, say, a flash based site. While there are technical reasons why this may be so (it's hard to index flash data), it's still a case of Google arbitrarily choosing one method over another.
Google *IS* telling you how to design your web site. If you do this, and do that, and do this other thing, your ranking will be higher than if you don't do those things. So, two sites, with identical content, but one structurs it in the way that google wants, that one will get a higher page rank.
Now, if I want to design my site in such a way as to be friendly to my users (say, a flash based site... please, no comments about how friendly flash is.. lots of usres like it), but not friendly to google, why should a competitor with a crappier site get a higher rank? Just because they followed googles rules? That's bull.
Re:Although this seems "reasonable" in light of th
on
Google Delists BMW-Germany
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
"If you design your site in such a way..."
That's precisely my point. Google is dictating how you must design your site. No, you don't have to follow their standards, but if you don't, you get a low page rank and your competitor, who DOES follow googles rules gets ranked above you.
Your argument is strictly about fraudsters, but this was not a case of fraud from what I understand. It was simply a case of their site not being search engine friendly, and trying to improve their rank because they didn't design their site in such a way as to comply with googles commandments.
Re:Although this seems "reasonable" in light of th
on
Google Delists BMW-Germany
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually, from what I understand, they weren't spamming at all. What they were doing was using 'doorway' pages, which serve up different content to the googlebot than to human visitors. My understanding is that bmw's DE site wasn't very search engine friendly, and so they used doorway pages to "optimize" their results.
While this is against the googles terms of service, I can see how someone might think this was a perfectly valid way of countering the fact that google wasn't indexing their site well.
This brings up some thorny issues in my mind. Google is now dictating the way we must design our sites if we want to even hope to get a decent google rank. In effect, google is dictating the terms upon which the entire web must operate, or get a 'death penalty', either because your site doesn't match what google is looking for (and thus gets a low rank) or because you gave google what they were looking for, but it violated their terms of service.
i really don't understand your argument at all. You argue that objects shouldn't be objects at all, but rather static functions in an object namespace? Why even bother then? Why not just write C?
But you still need X11 on the machine on which the GUI is run... So for example you cannot start a VM from a remote location throught SSH.
Not true at all. GSX and ESX server are managed by a web interface. You start and stop VM's (and create them, etc..) via a web browser.
As for your other comments, I don't agree about the custom virtual NIC adapters. They work pretty well in my experience. There are multiple modes that allow it's use in different scenarios. One of those scenarios is host-only networking (creating a network between virtual hosts only, something that QEMU is only now starting to support).
VMWare performance is pretty damn good, if you've used a recent version. It used to suck, but i notice no real performance differences, other than video related ones. Also, VMWare supports 64 bit virtualziation as well, not sure if QEMU does.
VMWare isn't solving all of the problems of virtualization. New OS's are taking more and more advantage of advanced hardware, such as 3D desktop rendering, composition, etc.. Many games are also very difficult to play under virtualization because there's no virtualization of the underlying DirectX architecture to support hardware features. Then there's the whole host device virtualzation problem for everything but sound and video. USB is coming along, but thigns like TV Tuners, or other PCI/PCIe devices are not available.
There's a *LOT* of work to go yet, but virtualization for common desktop apps is pretty solid these days.
Oh, I agree with you. Frankly, a lot of that is just marketing babble for common techniques. But, no other product seems to be doing this, and I can certainly tell the difference. If I could get a similar product cheaper, I'd certainly buy it... But nothing I have found really gives me the energy, and more importan for me, the increased mental productivity, that I get from Vibe. After I take a shot of vibe, i write better code, am more alert, less jittery, and have better focus and concentration.
Again, I'm just saying what *I* get from the product. These results are real, at least to me. Even if it's a placebo effect (which I doubt) I'd still take it.
I don't think you've taken a look at the new 5.x series or the GSX or ESX server, though granted ESX is outrageously expensive. I'm not that familiar with QEMU, but some of the things you mention don't apply to VMWare GSX or ESX server. For example, GSX and ESX server allow remote GUI's, so you don't need X11 on the host machine.
Additionally, VMWare has multi-processor support, as well as virtual SMP support, so you can simulate SMP on a single processor box (handy if you're debugging SMP problems but only have a single CPU system).
Also, there's a pretty extensive scripting API on both GSX and ESX server and has been for years. I can't speak for Linux API, but the COM api on Windows has been used for a long time.
About the only thing on your list that VMWare GSX server doesn't have is your "copy on write" but for the performance advantages of VMWare, i'd deal with it.
I feel obligated to correct you on a few things. First, it's not pills. It's a liquid vitamin. Your body only absorbs about 3-7% of a typical "pill" vitamin (your body can't digest it fast enough before it makes it's way through your system). Second, it doesn't cost $120, it's $59 for a 30 day supply.
Pills are fine, but they're usually chelated material.. ie crushed minerals. It's not a form your body can readily absorb, so you're wasting a lot of what you're paying for.
Put another way. If you only absorb, let's be generous and say 10% of a typical pill vitamin, you need to take 10x as many of them to get the same effect, and suddenly your cost savings of buying those cheap pills has evaporated. Pills just suck.
I'm not trying to sell you anything here, since I have no connection to the company. I just know the results I get from it are far and above anything i've gotten from pills, and it's ORAC score is just about off the chart. I just like the product, and no "energy drink" has ever given me the energy I get from it. Don't like it, fine, don't use it, but don't presume that you're getting the same thing from taking a few pills.
That's a very strange argument. By your reasoning, you can't fault Microsoft for copying anyone else because they're the one to bring the feature to the publics attention.
I'm curious. Microsoft has been showing this feature for months now. As far as I can tell, Foxpose was only released earlier last month (Jauary 3). Did Microsoft copy Foxpose, or did Foxpose copy an early beta of IE? (Both of which copied MacOS, though I don't think Safari has that feature)
This kind of thing doesn't happen overnight. It takes time to develop, the question is, which got the idea from whom?
I hadn't noticed that, thanks. I did some research, and it appears that Green Tea has a lot less caffein than other kinds of teas, so it may not even be as much as a single cup of coffee.
One other thing I noticed, this is apparently the only vitamin product to be listed in the Physicians Desk Reference because of its ORAC score. I don't have a copy of the PDR to verify, if someone else does, can you look it up?
Seriously, this stuff gets sucked into your bloodstream almost instantly and gives you a rush for hours, without ephedrine, caffein, or any other stimulants... it's freakin amazing...
Slashdot Mirror
You're looking at things from the wrong perspective. As an end user, doing google searches, sure. I can go anywhere I want. But there is no incentive for me to do so because none of googles competitors can.. well.. compete. But, as a site owner, I can't just wave my hand and have everyone searching for things relavent to my site use a different search engine.
If I want my site to get used, I *HAVE* to appease google. Getting blacklisted or low ranked is equivelant to, for example, Orson Wells being blackballed by Hurst and forced into obscurity for many years.
Google isn't king because they have a better product. They're king because they have better DATA, from 10 years of data mining, something a startup company simply can't compete with.
Where, exactly, did I say I wanted to dictate how they rank their pages? I didn't.
What I did say was that google has an imperfect algorithm, and along with punishment for trying to get around that imperfect algorithm, creates a situation where they dictate the rules, and the punishment for not following them.
Personally, I would have no problem with google if a) their algorithm were fair and indexed all kinds of content b) they didn't 'punish' sites for trying to level the playing field or c) there was some viable compeition to google so that market forces could compensate.
It's this "follow our rules or be punished" attitude that's disturbing.
That's really the point. You have three choices. a) design in the google dictated way. b) design however you like, and if your rank suffers, use tools like this (ie, cheat) or c) design however you like, and if your rank suffers, wallow in self pitty and obscurity.
Given those choices, most honest people would choose a, while dishonest would choose b... next to nobody would choose c.
You mean, just like anyone can start a software company to compete with Microsoft?
Monopoly power means they control the market. There are barriers to entry which make it difficult to compete. Among those barriers is that they already have a large user base, not to mention petabytes of indexed and cached content from many years of operation. Just to catch up to where google is now would take a competitor many years, and google would not be standing still.
Google is driving its competition out of business, and there will only be "one true search engine" by the time it's all done. Oh sure, there will be tons of Alta Vista's and Excites and Hotbots, but they simply won't be relavent. If we're lucky, there will be companies that provide different ways to view the google data, sort of an ask jeeves built on a google API, but that's about it, and since google will control the data, they will also control those companies.
Make no mistake, google is already dangerously powerful. You just don't see it yet.
The reason google should be obligated is because of the great power they wield. Much like Microsoft and other Monopolies have to work extra hard to play fair. I don't know if google could yet be classified as a monopoly, but i think they're damn close given that Yahoo has basically thrown in the towel to them.
I'm not talking about spamming. I'm talking about sites having to conform to google's whims in order to appear anywhere near the top of a google search. I'm talking about legitimate sites, not even sites selling anything. Sites that simply choose to design their sites in one way or another can have their google rank turned to crap. Google now commands so much power that you are largely FORCED to appease google if you want your site to be discovered by anyone.
Yeah, i'm being overly melodramatic. But the point is clear, if you don't do what google wants, your rank suffers. THAT is power.
Oh, I agree with you that this is an inherant problem with search engines; the inability to index certain kinds of sites. My point is that google should not be "punishing" companies that choose to design their site a specific way, and then "cheat" to get around problems with search engine technology.
Google should be trying to solve the problems with indexing these kinds of content, not enforcing that sites follow a method they CAN index.
Except, of course, that the competition is starting to be driven out of business. Even Yahoo has decided they can't compete with Google. Microsoft seems to be the only company even trying anymore.
Google doesn't tell people how to design pages
Except when they do.
I wasn't referring just to doorway pages. I was referring to how google prefers some kinds of content over others.
I think you misunderstand the argument. My argument is not that Google is or isn't doing anything illegal, but rather that they are, by virtue of their overpowering presence in the market (so much so that even Yahoo has given up trying to beat them, and the term "googling" has become synonymous with web searching) means that any rules they put in place that effect web sites page rank should be fair and not arbitrary.
Unfortunately, Google has taken the route that pure text sites that make heavy use of semantic tags get better ranks than, say, a flash based site. While there are technical reasons why this may be so (it's hard to index flash data), it's still a case of Google arbitrarily choosing one method over another.
Google *IS* telling you how to design your web site. If you do this, and do that, and do this other thing, your ranking will be higher than if you don't do those things. So, two sites, with identical content, but one structurs it in the way that google wants, that one will get a higher page rank.
Now, if I want to design my site in such a way as to be friendly to my users (say, a flash based site... please, no comments about how friendly flash is.. lots of usres like it), but not friendly to google, why should a competitor with a crappier site get a higher rank? Just because they followed googles rules? That's bull.
"If you design your site in such a way..."
That's precisely my point. Google is dictating how you must design your site. No, you don't have to follow their standards, but if you don't, you get a low page rank and your competitor, who DOES follow googles rules gets ranked above you.
Your argument is strictly about fraudsters, but this was not a case of fraud from what I understand. It was simply a case of their site not being search engine friendly, and trying to improve their rank because they didn't design their site in such a way as to comply with googles commandments.
Actually, from what I understand, they weren't spamming at all. What they were doing was using 'doorway' pages, which serve up different content to the googlebot than to human visitors. My understanding is that bmw's DE site wasn't very search engine friendly, and so they used doorway pages to "optimize" their results.
While this is against the googles terms of service, I can see how someone might think this was a perfectly valid way of countering the fact that google wasn't indexing their site well.
This brings up some thorny issues in my mind. Google is now dictating the way we must design our sites if we want to even hope to get a decent google rank. In effect, google is dictating the terms upon which the entire web must operate, or get a 'death penalty', either because your site doesn't match what google is looking for (and thus gets a low rank) or because you gave google what they were looking for, but it violated their terms of service.
This seems inherantly "evil" to me.
i really don't understand your argument at all. You argue that objects shouldn't be objects at all, but rather static functions in an object namespace? Why even bother then? Why not just write C?
But you still need X11 on the machine on which the GUI is run... So for example you cannot start a VM from a remote location throught SSH.
Not true at all. GSX and ESX server are managed by a web interface. You start and stop VM's (and create them, etc..) via a web browser.
As for your other comments, I don't agree about the custom virtual NIC adapters. They work pretty well in my experience. There are multiple modes that allow it's use in different scenarios. One of those scenarios is host-only networking (creating a network between virtual hosts only, something that QEMU is only now starting to support).
VMWare performance is pretty damn good, if you've used a recent version. It used to suck, but i notice no real performance differences, other than video related ones. Also, VMWare supports 64 bit virtualziation as well, not sure if QEMU does.
VMWare isn't solving all of the problems of virtualization. New OS's are taking more and more advantage of advanced hardware, such as 3D desktop rendering, composition, etc.. Many games are also very difficult to play under virtualization because there's no virtualization of the underlying DirectX architecture to support hardware features. Then there's the whole host device virtualzation problem for everything but sound and video. USB is coming along, but thigns like TV Tuners, or other PCI/PCIe devices are not available.
There's a *LOT* of work to go yet, but virtualization for common desktop apps is pretty solid these days.
Oh, I agree with you. Frankly, a lot of that is just marketing babble for common techniques. But, no other product seems to be doing this, and I can certainly tell the difference. If I could get a similar product cheaper, I'd certainly buy it... But nothing I have found really gives me the energy, and more importan for me, the increased mental productivity, that I get from Vibe. After I take a shot of vibe, i write better code, am more alert, less jittery, and have better focus and concentration.
Again, I'm just saying what *I* get from the product. These results are real, at least to me. Even if it's a placebo effect (which I doubt) I'd still take it.
I don't think you've taken a look at the new 5.x series or the GSX or ESX server, though granted ESX is outrageously expensive. I'm not that familiar with QEMU, but some of the things you mention don't apply to VMWare GSX or ESX server. For example, GSX and ESX server allow remote GUI's, so you don't need X11 on the host machine.
Additionally, VMWare has multi-processor support, as well as virtual SMP support, so you can simulate SMP on a single processor box (handy if you're debugging SMP problems but only have a single CPU system).
Also, there's a pretty extensive scripting API on both GSX and ESX server and has been for years. I can't speak for Linux API, but the COM api on Windows has been used for a long time.
About the only thing on your list that VMWare GSX server doesn't have is your "copy on write" but for the performance advantages of VMWare, i'd deal with it.
I feel obligated to correct you on a few things. First, it's not pills. It's a liquid vitamin. Your body only absorbs about 3-7% of a typical "pill" vitamin (your body can't digest it fast enough before it makes it's way through your system). Second, it doesn't cost $120, it's $59 for a 30 day supply.
Pills are fine, but they're usually chelated material.. ie crushed minerals. It's not a form your body can readily absorb, so you're wasting a lot of what you're paying for.
Put another way. If you only absorb, let's be generous and say 10% of a typical pill vitamin, you need to take 10x as many of them to get the same effect, and suddenly your cost savings of buying those cheap pills has evaporated. Pills just suck.
I'm not trying to sell you anything here, since I have no connection to the company. I just know the results I get from it are far and above anything i've gotten from pills, and it's ORAC score is just about off the chart. I just like the product, and no "energy drink" has ever given me the energy I get from it. Don't like it, fine, don't use it, but don't presume that you're getting the same thing from taking a few pills.
Is this some kind of euro-test?
I did mention that in my post.
However, Safari doesn't do this, so you can't see the individual tabs in a safari window through expose.
That's a very strange argument. By your reasoning, you can't fault Microsoft for copying anyone else because they're the one to bring the feature to the publics attention.
Justifications suck all around.
I'm curious. Microsoft has been showing this feature for months now. As far as I can tell, Foxpose was only released earlier last month (Jauary 3). Did Microsoft copy Foxpose, or did Foxpose copy an early beta of IE? (Both of which copied MacOS, though I don't think Safari has that feature)
This kind of thing doesn't happen overnight. It takes time to develop, the question is, which got the idea from whom?
I hadn't noticed that, thanks. I did some research, and it appears that Green Tea has a lot less caffein than other kinds of teas, so it may not even be as much as a single cup of coffee.
One other thing I noticed, this is apparently the only vitamin product to be listed in the Physicians Desk Reference because of its ORAC score. I don't have a copy of the PDR to verify, if someone else does, can you look it up?
Instead of caffein, I prefer nutritional supplements that give you energy without the jitters.
One of my favorites is Vibe
Seriously, this stuff gets sucked into your bloodstream almost instantly and gives you a rush for hours, without ephedrine, caffein, or any other stimulants... it's freakin amazing...