Search results and index size are not applicable when talking about search advertising. Those numbers are completely irrelevant as Google, MSN, and Yahoo are not required by law to provide any level of quality in their search results. They can show whatever they want organically.
The argument is that since Google has close to 73% world market share in search traffic, that they also have that same 73% in search advertising. If you leverage that by showing your listings first in the adverts, you are unfairly manipulating a monopoly.
True. But that has no bearing in this discussion. Once you click the ad and are moved to my landing page, you are now my responsibility to keep as a surfer or a consumer. Google's part is done.
The issue is that before you click and become my customer, you are a Google product and I am the customer shopping for you.
This isn't all online advertising, that term is too loose. Online advertising encompasses content advertising as well as search advertising.
We are talking about search advertising in particular. In this context 73% share is command of the supply. If you own the search traffic, you own the search advertising. Google isn't about to show MSN or Yahoo ads next to their search results, and they shouldn't have to. What Google shouldn't be doing is reserving the top advertising slots for their own products when they are the only real search advertising game in town. That is unfair leveraging.
Actually, Netscape got pwned because developing for their DOM model sucked. Also, they tried to make a play at becoming the Netscape portal, splitting their war chest in two and leaving them underfunded on the browser front.
It wasn't all Microsoft's fault. Netscape made some bad decisions themselves.
1) Cost to the average user. When you decide you want to or need to use Microsoft software, it'll cost you. Non-OEM copies of Windows are quite expensive (~$300?). When you decide to use Google to look for a website, it's free, other than having a few ads on the right side of the screen. I've never sent Google a dime, even though I've used many of their services (search, maps, etc.) for years.
As I, and other posters, have been pointing out. You are not the consumer, nor the customer. You are the product. The advertisers are the customer. They are most definitely charged by Google for their services. Google also has close to 73% world market share for search. That directly translates into 73% world market share in search advertising, which is the monopoly.
Google has almost 73% world market share in search. That gives you 73% world market share in search advertising. That is a monopoly. No one is arguing that there isn't competition for online advertising companies, there are. Google's content advertising has many competitors - as do their free email services, map tools, ect.
Back to the 73% search advertising market share. If you have that much of the market captured, AND you leverage it to get placement for your OTHER services - you are manipulating a monopoly unfairly. Everyone complained when MS did it with IE and Office, now people are defending it it because Google did it.
Also, I've seen plenty of 'weavers' turn into pacers (and stay steady with the car to the right) when they get to the front of the pack, as it seems that their biggest concern isn't keeping a good speed, but being 'first'.
I do this (American btw), and I usually stick to the right 2 lanes to do it. My goal isn't to be first - it's to have the most options available in front of me. I don't like sitting in someones blind spot, I also don't like properly pacing my lane and getting trapped in by your "weavers".
If being out front means having more response options available to you - then I'm out front.
When I was in school I worked all the time, had no money, and could never play games. My fiance basically works the opposite schedule I do, so I have all the time in the world to play games. I have a well used gamefly account to play all the games I 'm not sure I'd want to buy. Its a pretty good way of not blowing too much money on a lousy game.
Then I have all the games I buy without question. Usually MGS, FF, SOCOM, Zelda, GTA, Soul Caliber, and GT titles.
I have found that I don't run into the game length issue because quick games usually get sent back to Gamefly, along with titles where I just wanted to get a little hands on time with. Games I like from them I buy at a used price and get another one to look at.
There is something extremely relaxing about grinding levels. Its almost like meditating for me.
I understand what you're saying though - sometimes the mechanic isn't enough to keep me interested. Okami was way too long for me. Awesome game, but I put it down about 2/3rds of the way through. It became tedious to play.
Re:How did they get the book out so fast
on
CSS Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
Joe doesn't even read. To him reading=audio books.
I'm not knocking audio books, they have a time and a place, but they weren't meant to supplant reading altogether.
With such a small group of people being targeted, this just seems like a terribly inefficient way to sell your service.
Actually, its highly efficient.
These are CIO's at 20 Fortune 500 companies. If they decide to move forward on a company wide security initiative you're talking about a project that could take 2-3 years and millions of dollars to implement. If Unisys grabs just one sale from this, they have more than paid for the marketing. I don't think this initiative cost them any more than $700,000.
Plus, lobbyists sell government, not business. Two different motivators and methodologies.
I will agree that Texas is harsh, but states like those are the exception, not the rule. Also, a forceable felony must be taking place for you to be in the clear for those acts. Misdemeanor tresspass is not one of those offenses.
Under the statute, forcible felonies include "treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual." - from the link.
I will also admit that any lawyer worth his salt can find the invaders behavior to fall under at least one of these categories.
My statement is meant more in the vein of "you can't shoot someone for walking across your lawn."
As for Government installations, those fall under completely different rules. That's accessing a restricted area - WAY different than trespassing in how the actions are viewed. Your very presence there is considered a serious offense.
Trespassing is a tort. Shooting someone for being on your property is on offense on your part. If you ask someone to leave and they don't, then you have criminal trespassing. This is where the use of force comes into play, but is still viewed withing the context of the trespassers behavior.
You are not blanketly cleared to behave however you want towards other people on your property.
I got around this by telling my kids they could talk back, but they would pay the costs of their actions. If a legitimate argument or opinion was being oppressed, or they were being manhandled by someone abusing their authority - I would go into the school and raise holy hell.
Now, if they were just being a wise-ass for no reason with expectations that I would bail them out, the punishemnt they would receive from the school would not only be supported by me, but I would add my own layer of punishment specially tailored to their personal dislikes.
It deals with the causes people have for violent behavior, and generally boils down to narcissist's lash out at those who challenge their self view. They feel completely justified in their behavior, and in some cases are proud of it. The tests done in the article also show that these same Narcissists DO NOT lash out at those who did not directly challenge their self view after it had been challenged. Their violent aggression is purposely directed.
This could explain why some murderers do not commit violent acts again.
Also, it is impossible for any research to prove or disprove that a person feels a certain way about a subject. The gathering of that data requires an honest and open discourse between the test subjects and the researcher and a shared and complete definition of all facets being discussed. This does not exist. Feelings cannot be observed, behaviors can - making any study attempting to define feelings nebulous at best. You can attempt to take a poll or conduct a series of interviews, but these are not empirical data sources.
Slashdot Mirror
Search results and index size are not applicable when talking about search advertising. Those numbers are completely irrelevant as Google, MSN, and Yahoo are not required by law to provide any level of quality in their search results. They can show whatever they want organically.
The argument is that since Google has close to 73% world market share in search traffic, that they also have that same 73% in search advertising. If you leverage that by showing your listings first in the adverts, you are unfairly manipulating a monopoly.
True. But that has no bearing in this discussion. Once you click the ad and are moved to my landing page, you are now my responsibility to keep as a surfer or a consumer. Google's part is done.
The issue is that before you click and become my customer, you are a Google product and I am the customer shopping for you.
This isn't all online advertising, that term is too loose. Online advertising encompasses content advertising as well as search advertising.
We are talking about search advertising in particular. In this context 73% share is command of the supply. If you own the search traffic, you own the search advertising. Google isn't about to show MSN or Yahoo ads next to their search results, and they shouldn't have to. What Google shouldn't be doing is reserving the top advertising slots for their own products when they are the only real search advertising game in town. That is unfair leveraging.
Please see my previous post here, it addresses the fact that 51% is an inaccurate number. The number is more like 73%.
That's only for Google.com, not their other offerings such as google.jp and such. World share is about 73%.
Actually, Netscape got pwned because developing for their DOM model sucked. Also, they tried to make a play at becoming the Netscape portal, splitting their war chest in two and leaving them underfunded on the browser front.
It wasn't all Microsoft's fault. Netscape made some bad decisions themselves.
That's just Google.com, not all of the other sites they own. Google has more like 73% world share.
1) Cost to the average user. When you decide you want to or need to use Microsoft software, it'll cost you. Non-OEM copies of Windows are quite expensive (~$300?). When you decide to use Google to look for a website, it's free, other than having a few ads on the right side of the screen. I've never sent Google a dime, even though I've used many of their services (search, maps, etc.) for years.
As I, and other posters, have been pointing out. You are not the consumer, nor the customer. You are the product. The advertisers are the customer. They are most definitely charged by Google for their services. Google also has close to 73% world market share for search. That directly translates into 73% world market share in search advertising, which is the monopoly.
Google has almost 73% world market share in search. That gives you 73% world market share in search advertising.
That's the monopoly. Not search itself.
Sorry. Wrong.
Google has almost 73% world market share in search. That gives you 73% world market share in search advertising. That is a monopoly. No one is arguing that there isn't competition for online advertising companies, there are. Google's content advertising has many competitors - as do their free email services, map tools, ect.
Back to the 73% search advertising market share. If you have that much of the market captured, AND you leverage it to get placement for your OTHER services - you are manipulating a monopoly unfairly. Everyone complained when MS did it with IE and Office, now people are defending it it because Google did it.
We're talking about ad listings, not organic listings. Google is number one in the ads.
Also, I've seen plenty of 'weavers' turn into pacers (and stay steady with the car to the right) when they get to the front of the pack, as it seems that their biggest concern isn't keeping a good speed, but being 'first'.
I do this (American btw), and I usually stick to the right 2 lanes to do it. My goal isn't to be first - it's to have the most options available in front of me. I don't like sitting in someones blind spot, I also don't like properly pacing my lane and getting trapped in by your "weavers".
If being out front means having more response options available to you - then I'm out front.
Logged vs Ac - neither lends nor removes any actual legitimacy from an argument. The statements made in the argument do that.
If you require a user log in to present an argument as a measure of legitimacy, you're paying attention to the wrong part of the story.
I have the exact same issue.
When I was in school I worked all the time, had no money, and could never play games. My fiance basically works the opposite schedule I do, so I have all the time in the world to play games. I have a well used gamefly account to play all the games I 'm not sure I'd want to buy. Its a pretty good way of not blowing too much money on a lousy game.
Then I have all the games I buy without question. Usually MGS, FF, SOCOM, Zelda, GTA, Soul Caliber, and GT titles.
I have found that I don't run into the game length issue because quick games usually get sent back to Gamefly, along with titles where I just wanted to get a little hands on time with. Games I like from them I buy at a used price and get another one to look at.
This is the reason I do play RPG's.
There is something extremely relaxing about grinding levels. Its almost like meditating for me.
I understand what you're saying though - sometimes the mechanic isn't enough to keep me interested. Okami was way too long for me. Awesome game, but I put it down about 2/3rds of the way through. It became tedious to play.
Joe doesn't even read. To him reading=audio books.
I'm not knocking audio books, they have a time and a place, but they weren't meant to supplant reading altogether.
Its SON¥ not $ony
Ravenswood is not a very expensive bottle of wine. It goes for about 10 bucks. Also, red wine is better than beer in cold weather IMHO.
Also, some people prefer a red wine buzz to a beer buzz.
With such a small group of people being targeted, this just seems like a terribly inefficient way to sell your service.
Actually, its highly efficient.
These are CIO's at 20 Fortune 500 companies. If they decide to move forward on a company wide security initiative you're talking about a project that could take 2-3 years and millions of dollars to implement. If Unisys grabs just one sale from this, they have more than paid for the marketing. I don't think this initiative cost them any more than $700,000.
Plus, lobbyists sell government, not business. Two different motivators and methodologies.
I will agree that Texas is harsh, but states like those are the exception, not the rule. Also, a forceable felony must be taking place for you to be in the clear for those acts. Misdemeanor tresspass is not one of those offenses.
Under the statute, forcible felonies include "treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual." - from the link.
I will also admit that any lawyer worth his salt can find the invaders behavior to fall under at least one of these categories.
My statement is meant more in the vein of "you can't shoot someone for walking across your lawn."
As for Government installations, those fall under completely different rules. That's accessing a restricted area - WAY different than trespassing in how the actions are viewed. Your very presence there is considered a serious offense.
Trespassing is a tort. Shooting someone for being on your property is on offense on your part. If you ask someone to leave and they don't, then you have criminal trespassing. This is where the use of force comes into play, but is still viewed withing the context of the trespassers behavior.
You are not blanketly cleared to behave however you want towards other people on your property.
I got around this by telling my kids they could talk back, but they would pay the costs of their actions. If a legitimate argument or opinion was being oppressed, or they were being manhandled by someone abusing their authority - I would go into the school and raise holy hell.
Now, if they were just being a wise-ass for no reason with expectations that I would bail them out, the punishemnt they would receive from the school would not only be supported by me, but I would add my own layer of punishment specially tailored to their personal dislikes.
There is no breach of privacy by writing code that can observe publicly available material.
While not exactly what you're looking for, and you have to pay to read it. Sorry I didn't know of a better reference - this is what I had read.
0 0D6DDB-D065-14C7-8DCC83414B7F0000
http://www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?&articleID=0
It deals with the causes people have for violent behavior, and generally boils down to narcissist's lash out at those who challenge their self view. They feel completely justified in their behavior, and in some cases are proud of it. The tests done in the article also show that these same Narcissists DO NOT lash out at those who did not directly challenge their self view after it had been challenged. Their violent aggression is purposely directed.
This could explain why some murderers do not commit violent acts again.
Also, it is impossible for any research to prove or disprove that a person feels a certain way about a subject. The gathering of that data requires an honest and open discourse between the test subjects and the researcher and a shared and complete definition of all facets being discussed. This does not exist. Feelings cannot be observed, behaviors can - making any study attempting to define feelings nebulous at best. You can attempt to take a poll or conduct a series of interviews, but these are not empirical data sources.
That is laughably ridiculous. First party development is not significant? That is absolute folly!
Yeah, it is a pretty ridiculous statement. I really should have written "First party development is not as significant"
Because as you stated, third party dev is what makes things happen.