What borders does Yahoo or Google or Slashdot have? Will there be a google.com.us and google.com.** to distinguish between us and them?
Actually, Google does have separate servers for the UK and the US. They also have different data centers for all around the globe, multiple in the US even. A search made in the UK comes up significanly different than a search in the US. Also, some countries have differing laws on what can be presented to a person on the internet while they reside in the geographic borders of that country. Yahoo and Slashdot both have the borders of their physical networks. Any time code is executed on their servers, it is "inside" their borders. That definition can be applied to any larger area or entity.
Now, if we are using the term internet as a concept, the cultural entity created by the free trade of information, then I would agree that the border debate is pointless. That is not what is being talked about here.
The cybersecurity secretary (or whatever the position is called) is in charge of securing the hardware that is the backbone of the our internet. Which is to say, all servers and data passing infrustructure within our geographic borders. These physical borders do not mirror the conceptual borders of the internet, yet they do have a parallel. Defacing a website that is not your own, or hacking a server to steal information, is very much crossing a border. It has a physical representation in the world AND it has a conceptual equivalent "on the internet". While the two are related in terms of vocabulry and concept sharing, their definitions are not the same.
If this was just someones lame "Look at pictures of my puppies" website that held no personal information about anyone and it got hacked, the fault would lie totally with the hacker.
You house other peoples private data, you better be securing the site, or you are negligent.
The Internet does have borders. You have LAN and WAN. Is a LAN part of the WAN? Not necessarily.
Another exmple would be my home network and the network I have at work. Sometimes I can VPN to the office network. Other times My network is separate. That would be an amazing trick with your so called "borderless" internet.
The machines that run the internet physically exist, as does the structures in place to relay the data. Sever these streams and the data reroutes itself to get to the desired destination. It takes a border to make an obstruction. Take this one step further and sever all data conduits. You now have an island, and that has borders.
Your "Inter" and "network" statement is not quite accurate either. "Inter" also means between. Between networks would be a more accurate definition.
And what is Meta - understanding? Comprehension of the particulars of understanding? Their goals would seem to be to regulate certain traffic between specific points of the internet, mainly those that physically reside within the US borders. They need a guy to show them how. So I think they have the Meta-understanding thing under grasp.
Yet, I do believe that whomever they chose, he will F it up royally.
Did the Excel test run as a Java applet? The one I recently had to take as part of a cross company "skills evaluation" did. The funny thing about it was the applet had a flaw. If your action wasn't the one the applet was looking for, it wouldn't unlock the answer button and would start the problem from over from the beginning. I already knew how to do the tasks being asked by the test, so it was no problem, perfect score (not saying alot, I know). Yet, one of the guys in telemarketing got a perfect score using trial and error. Friggin Hilarious.
Not only that, but what about the ESRB? If you made a game where your Mom, Santa Clause, and Jesus were the ones motivating you towards violent acts - then the game would be given a MA rating or possibly AO. This does lead to a decrease in sales. Maybe not with the hardcore demographic, as they are older - but the little kids won't get to play it.
Before you say anything, I know not all parents read the ESRB ratings - but enough do to cut into sales.
Now, take the same game, and make the motivators "Monsters". WHOOOOO! Now it's much easier to digest socially, and therefore given a slightly lesser ESRB rating. It should be noted that the percieved bias is actually a result of multiple factors, not just some developers trying to shape opinions through subtle differences in fictional characters in a fictional world quite often simulating very fictional scenarios.
Holy Cow! A search guy and an SEO guy are making amends! This is a model for world peace!. Seriously,I really do appreciate that. I also think I may have taken your statements a little too personally. I am really just a nameless faceless poster. I can also relate to your hatred of Black Hat SEO's. Many a time have I been frustrated at not being able to find what I needed on Google, and I know how to search properly, because of adTowers and super link lists.
It must be annoying as hell to get an algo together and implement it only to see your results decay underneath the unrelenting wave of unethical asshats. I know I would be pissed as hell if I built a site for baby wipes and it started showing as results for Kiddie porn.
I really didn't want to flame on either, yet I felt compelled. I bet we amused the hell out of a few people.
Man, I'm going to have to steal your "Slashdot post reply optimization" line and use it as my sig, that jazz is funny.
I can appreciate your statement. And I can accept that the line of work I am in has a negative image. But it's the same as opt in email marketing as opposed to email spamming. One useful, the other not so great.
But I'm no leach on society, thats for damn sure. I don't employ unethical tactics. I don't try to strech the definition of the products that I promote. I get people with good relevant content get recognized when they're supposed to be recognized.
I know I'm not going to convert anyone here into an SEO true believer, because this is a really idealistic place. But I'll be damned if I'm going to lay down and be told that I should "accept" that I am a leech on society when I have nothing in common with the unethical SEO's described here other than a job title.
Is this not EXACTLY what YOUR clients do? This model, is THE ONLY reason your business exists. Shut mouth, open mind, think. Try it. This and the reply to my statement before it are half accurate. The difference being that people who employ my services have a say in how I do it. No business owners have a say in how a search engine ranks their content.
So what are you saying? First you say the algo changes are to make it better, then you admit to abusing the loopholes, forcing changes in the algo. I guess my original post was correct, most algo changes are made to negate manipulation by SEO's. Thanks for confirming your douche bag status in the SEO world (not that there was any doubt in the first place).
I was speaking as a whole for the SEO community in the first person. If your whole argument is based on scemantics, then you need to get a clue. But, I can understand the misinterpretation.
So, if I was, say researching a cure for Cancer, you would be quite happy to be able to route my clicks, to your clients, right? Even if your clients are selling, oh say tobacco products.
Man, I DON'T do that. Like I said - go yell at the guy who does. It can be done, and I acknowledge that, but your assumption of everyone in SEO as employing these tactics is totally off.
Or like on your site maybe, nice tags. Throw the "Love" one in last, cause your site is full of love.
You have got to be kidding me. That site is so UNOPTIMIZED it's not even funny. No traffic goes to it, it never gets indexed, and the adwords on it are to see how irrelevant I can make the content on MY site. If you're in search, like you said you are, you know that keywords in the keyword meta tag are for shit. The only thing that I could possibly be construed to optimizing for would be the website's name. Oh, the horrors I'm commiting on humanity.
What makes SEO's douche bags, as mentioned above, is your only function is to exploit popular tools, to ensure that your pages rank higher, REGARDLESS of content, thereby degrading the usefullness of popular tools.
Not all SEO's do this. Your opinion is way off. There are shitty people in every field, even in search. What about search engines that place you higher the more you pay?
That is all HCI, Design, and usability work.
Good points. But as I was ignorant to the HCI acronym I didn't refer to it. As another poster pointed out earlier this thread, SEO is starting to become synonmous with "Good Website Design". And thats my take on it. Not everyone who understands HTML understands the cultural aspects of the market they're aiming at. I think your problem is you see so many of these crappy SEO guys that you begin to see all SEO guys as the same. Just like a burnt out cop.
Oh, as for my lack of understanding of EComm, or the changing business world, not related.
Yeah, cause search has nothing to do with the business environment today, or in the future.
You got your ass exposed, and handed to you, and you replied. Very nobel. Now, you have shamed yourself by your career choice, IMO.
Exposed as what? An SEO spamming asshole? How? I work in SEO, I don't spam. You have one example of a website, one that has ZERO significant ranking in google btw, and then you lump me in with spammers.
You don't have to respect how I feed myself or my family. That's your choice. But your little AC rant about how SEO guys suck is childish. All of your arguments are scemantic. And they all end with a crappy attempt to belittle me. Come on man, I can understand why you hate Black Hat SEO guys. Trust me I hate em too - they're the reason I keep having to have this same damn conversation all the time. But you don't seem to have a grasp of anything on this issue other than the one little part you know, and you make up for it with name calling. That doesn't lend any credibility to your arguments.
That is the opinion of an SEO douche bag. In the real world, users of Google want Google to figure out which one has the edge, not some half assed marketing dink with knowledge of HTML.
That is an opinion of an elitist prick. Who the hell are you to say that google should have the right to dictate to the public which of two competing businesses is better without the businesses having a say. I refuse to believe that any business should hand over their financial future to some other business and pray for the best.
You do realize that the only reason that the algorithm fluctuates as much as it does, is to keep you scumbag SEO fucks from polluting the rankings, right? I think if you take a look at the changes that have been made to the algorithm over the past few years, the majority of them have been used to defeat SEO tweeks
The changes in the algorith were made to make the results more relevant, not because of SEO tweeks - even thogh those tweeks are what uncovered the weaknesses in your algo. If your damn algorith was so accurate, I couldn't have manipulated it now could I? Just cause your algo was susceptible to some fool putting his keywords on a page 1000 times doesn't mean it's some SEO guys fault.
I do search for a living, and I deal with "SEO" people every day. I have never met a single one whose actual advice to their clients was "Content is king, provide the best available information, and you will succeed"
You deal with Spammers. I tell my clients not to waste time on get to the top quick routes cause it is short lived. I give you search guys enough credit to eventually come up with a solid algo, and when that happens no website I have consulted on will be dropped. Because content IS king. Also, SEO goes alot deeper than site building. There is a human element to it also. Understanding what and how your customers look for things, and catering to them is harder that "Hey put your key words on your webpages every 15 words and make sure they're in bold."
In the real world, the people who need good search results wish you would close up shop and get a job serving burgers and fries. At least there your clients are expecting to be buying shit.
People buy shit on the web moron. And I work for them. If you want to go yell at some guy who's interfering with people doing research on Cancer, then be my guest. But people who come to my websites purchase things, alot of things to be exact. What, did I magically SEO them into handing over their money? I don't think so. Your condescending attitude show you know nothing of Ecommerce or the changing business world. Just your little acre of it.
FOAD - Typical coming from an AC loser. I have shamed myself by even responding to you.
Snake oil salesmen? That is ridiculous, SEO's and SEM's provide a service with results that are undeniable. Thats not snake oil.
Look, SEO can be broken into two camps just like system security - Black and White. Good guys will tell you to build your pages with good content, and get meaningful links to other like minded sites. WE (I'm an SEO guy) do this to keep your site insulated from the fluctuating Google algorithm. Now, unscrupulous SEO guys will employ cloaking techniques or generate Link farms to up their PR, in turn effecting their organic ranking. This has a quick, short term effect that usually results in getting banned or penalized.
Here's a scenario for you. What if you have two competing, well built sites with great content on the same subject? How does one get the edge? SEO, that's how. You can restructure they way your code is layed out to have an affect on how the spiders "see" your site. This is NOT cloaking because the human sees the same exact page as the spider.
Whoever modded this post as insightful doesn't know what they're talking about. The truth of the matter is, when good SEO is employed - you don't even know about it. I can look at a website and in 5 seconds detirmine if it has employed SEO techniques. Your average surfer, and more importantly your average tech guy, cannot. Most high ranking sites employ SEO, not all are link farms.
I think people need to look up the definition of Monopoly.
Bundling software with the OS and assigning those programs as default is not forcing a monopoly. You cannot blame the apathy of the consumer on the Vendor.
I agree somewhat with disliking the inability to uninstall certain pieces of software, but thats not quite going to cut it as far as defining Microsoft as a Monopoly. It doesn't prevent users from using OTHER software does it? I mean, if Windows refused to allow you to install Winamp or iTunes or an Office alternative - THEN you have a monopoly.
Just because a company has a commanding share of the market doesn't make make it a Monopoly. People CHOOSE Windows, they aren't forced to buy it. Your average user Reads email, makes some text and spreadsheet docs, and surfs the Internet. I think all the OS's do that.
What's this media lock in you speak of? Sorry Windows didn't default to your favorite Open Source alternative, but thats not their job. There are free alternatives to Windows Media Player, and alot are better. It's just that, well, the consumer doesn't give a shit. If it does what they need it to well enough, they will accept that.
I guess it's also Microsoft's fault that Apple's OS's heven't played as many games as Windows has. Maybe Microsoft has a Monopoly on the PC gaming market too!
Read an economics book, when the demand consistently ignores alternatives, the alternatives are what are what need improvement. This, "give us a chance" rhetoric is crap. If the alternative products were better, the consumer would buy it. iPods and Playstations are just two examples of this.
And just because your prefered product doesn't have the Lion's share of the market, doesn't make the leader a monopoly.
Because the EU likes the International Copyright Act. Nullifying enforcement would be the equivalent of saying "Hey, it's ok to pirate this stuff. We won't prosecute you." If the EU wants to open that can of worms, I'm sure the American corporate machine would love to take them up on it. We could rape the EU of all profitable material distributed over here before you could say "No Fair." Guess what, I just copyrighted your book!
Also, Microsoft would have legal ground to argue that the EU enforces copyright law selectively, and thereby could sue the EU. I'm pretty sure Microsoft has the cash to do that. While I'm not so sure the EU has their act together enough to defend against it.
Not flaming you, but this is the mentality I am talking about. Who are we to define our process as unnatural? We remove ourselves and our actions from the world around us as if we aren't a part of it.
Did the ants just come along and find the anthill prebuilt and move in? No, they took resources around them, arranged them in a manner they saw fit, and used the resulting product for their own ends.
Just because our process is more complicated and advanced doesn't make it unnatural. We didn't majic matter out of thin air. We processed resources around us to form larger more complex resources. We organized our processes for doing such, and shared them with others of our species. How is this unnatural?
The human ego is so audacious that we take our accomplishements out the context of our environment and claim they meta-exist.
Since when did refining something immediately remove it from naturally existing and place it in the supernatural category?
Fact is, you're gonna die of something. In my opinion, cancer is a natural cause of death. Now, it may be abberant concerning the human system, but I wouldn't go and say it is unnatural. I do acknowledge that there are environmemtal factors that will increase the likely hood of developing cancer, but I just don't feel comfortable with out human definitions of what is and isn't natural.
If it exists, it seems to be natural, because it exists in nature. Even if it is an environment that we transformed around us. Ant's build anthills, and we consider that nature, yet our own houses are not considered in the same light.
Just a question, not a jab. Why do I have Canine teeth and depth perception?
My personal take on this; and I am not a biologist or Oncologist, is that the process of cooking animal protein is what gives it its carcinogenic qualities.
Good luck finding a substantial test group to eat raw animal protiens till mortality.
Slashdot Mirror
If she was a NOC, then the agency could never say she was, and never would say she was either.
What you don't have to do is recognize it's authority.
Actually, Google does have separate servers for the UK and the US. They also have different data centers for all around the globe, multiple in the US even. A search made in the UK comes up significanly different than a search in the US. Also, some countries have differing laws on what can be presented to a person on the internet while they reside in the geographic borders of that country. Yahoo and Slashdot both have the borders of their physical networks. Any time code is executed on their servers, it is "inside" their borders. That definition can be applied to any larger area or entity.
Now, if we are using the term internet as a concept, the cultural entity created by the free trade of information, then I would agree that the border debate is pointless. That is not what is being talked about here.The cybersecurity secretary (or whatever the position is called) is in charge of securing the hardware that is the backbone of the our internet. Which is to say, all servers and data passing infrustructure within our geographic borders. These physical borders do not mirror the conceptual borders of the internet, yet they do have a parallel. Defacing a website that is not your own, or hacking a server to steal information, is very much crossing a border. It has a physical representation in the world AND it has a conceptual equivalent "on the internet". While the two are related in terms of vocabulry and concept sharing, their definitions are not the same.
If this was just someones lame "Look at pictures of my puppies" website that held no personal information about anyone and it got hacked, the fault would lie totally with the hacker.
You house other peoples private data, you better be securing the site, or you are negligent.Another exmple would be my home network and the network I have at work. Sometimes I can VPN to the office network. Other times My network is separate. That would be an amazing trick with your so called "borderless" internet.
The machines that run the internet physically exist, as does the structures in place to relay the data. Sever these streams and the data reroutes itself to get to the desired destination. It takes a border to make an obstruction. Take this one step further and sever all data conduits. You now have an island, and that has borders.Your "Inter" and "network" statement is not quite accurate either. "Inter" also means between. Between networks would be a more accurate definition.
And what is Meta - understanding? Comprehension of the particulars of understanding? Their goals would seem to be to regulate certain traffic between specific points of the internet, mainly those that physically reside within the US borders. They need a guy to show them how. So I think they have the Meta-understanding thing under grasp.Yet, I do believe that whomever they chose, he will F it up royally.
Did the Excel test run as a Java applet? The one I recently had to take as part of a cross company "skills evaluation" did. The funny thing about it was the applet had a flaw. If your action wasn't the one the applet was looking for, it wouldn't unlock the answer button and would start the problem from over from the beginning. I already knew how to do the tasks being asked by the test, so it was no problem, perfect score (not saying alot, I know). Yet, one of the guys in telemarketing got a perfect score using trial and error. Friggin Hilarious.
Before you say anything, I know not all parents read the ESRB ratings - but enough do to cut into sales.
Now, take the same game, and make the motivators "Monsters". WHOOOOO! Now it's much easier to digest socially, and therefore given a slightly lesser ESRB rating. It should be noted that the percieved bias is actually a result of multiple factors, not just some developers trying to shape opinions through subtle differences in fictional characters in a fictional world quite often simulating very fictional scenarios.How about looking at ALL of the angles, not just two. I guess I'm going to be modded Troll now too.
I don't know about Malware, but http://www.zone-h.org/ has some interesting hack statistics.
How does the second Amendment stop invading armies?
I understand your argument, and it makes sense. Yet, I have a hard time believing this guy unwittingly clicked 106 links to illegal shit.
How long before the state penalizes you for NOT having them do your taxes?
It must be annoying as hell to get an algo together and implement it only to see your results decay underneath the unrelenting wave of unethical asshats. I know I would be pissed as hell if I built a site for baby wipes and it started showing as results for Kiddie porn.
I really didn't want to flame on either, yet I felt compelled. I bet we amused the hell out of a few people.Man, I'm going to have to steal your "Slashdot post reply optimization" line and use it as my sig, that jazz is funny.
BTW, how bad do you hate trackback?But I'm no leach on society, thats for damn sure. I don't employ unethical tactics. I don't try to strech the definition of the products that I promote. I get people with good relevant content get recognized when they're supposed to be recognized.
I know I'm not going to convert anyone here into an SEO true believer, because this is a really idealistic place. But I'll be damned if I'm going to lay down and be told that I should "accept" that I am a leech on society when I have nothing in common with the unethical SEO's described here other than a job title.This and the reply to my statement before it are half accurate. The difference being that people who employ my services have a say in how I do it. No business owners have a say in how a search engine ranks their content.
So what are you saying? First you say the algo changes are to make it better, then you admit to abusing the loopholes, forcing changes in the algo. I guess my original post was correct, most algo changes are made to negate manipulation by SEO's. Thanks for confirming your douche bag status in the SEO world (not that there was any doubt in the first place).
I was speaking as a whole for the SEO community in the first person. If your whole argument is based on scemantics, then you need to get a clue. But, I can understand the misinterpretation.
So, if I was, say researching a cure for Cancer, you would be quite happy to be able to route my clicks, to your clients, right? Even if your clients are selling, oh say tobacco products.
Man, I DON'T do that. Like I said - go yell at the guy who does. It can be done, and I acknowledge that, but your assumption of everyone in SEO as employing these tactics is totally off.
Or like on your site maybe, nice tags. Throw the "Love" one in last, cause your site is full of love.
You have got to be kidding me. That site is so UNOPTIMIZED it's not even funny. No traffic goes to it, it never gets indexed, and the adwords on it are to see how irrelevant I can make the content on MY site. If you're in search, like you said you are, you know that keywords in the keyword meta tag are for shit. The only thing that I could possibly be construed to optimizing for would be the website's name. Oh, the horrors I'm commiting on humanity.
What makes SEO's douche bags, as mentioned above, is your only function is to exploit popular tools, to ensure that your pages rank higher, REGARDLESS of content, thereby degrading the usefullness of popular tools.
Not all SEO's do this. Your opinion is way off. There are shitty people in every field, even in search. What about search engines that place you higher the more you pay?
That is all HCI, Design, and usability work.
Good points. But as I was ignorant to the HCI acronym I didn't refer to it. As another poster pointed out earlier this thread, SEO is starting to become synonmous with "Good Website Design". And thats my take on it. Not everyone who understands HTML understands the cultural aspects of the market they're aiming at. I think your problem is you see so many of these crappy SEO guys that you begin to see all SEO guys as the same. Just like a burnt out cop.
Oh, as for my lack of understanding of EComm, or the changing business world, not related.
Yeah, cause search has nothing to do with the business environment today, or in the future.
You got your ass exposed, and handed to you, and you replied. Very nobel. Now, you have shamed yourself by your career choice, IMO.
Exposed as what? An SEO spamming asshole? How? I work in SEO, I don't spam. You have one example of a website, one that has ZERO significant ranking in google btw, and then you lump me in with spammers.
You don't have to respect how I feed myself or my family. That's your choice. But your little AC rant about how SEO guys suck is childish. All of your arguments are scemantic. And they all end with a crappy attempt to belittle me. Come on man, I can understand why you hate Black Hat SEO guys. Trust me I hate em too - they're the reason I keep having to have this same damn conversation all the time. But you don't seem to have a grasp of anything on this issue other than the one little part you know, and you make up for it with name calling. That doesn't lend any credibility to your arguments.
That is an opinion of an elitist prick. Who the hell are you to say that google should have the right to dictate to the public which of two competing businesses is better without the businesses having a say. I refuse to believe that any business should hand over their financial future to some other business and pray for the best.
You do realize that the only reason that the algorithm fluctuates as much as it does, is to keep you scumbag SEO fucks from polluting the rankings, right? I think if you take a look at the changes that have been made to the algorithm over the past few years, the majority of them have been used to defeat SEO tweeksThe changes in the algorith were made to make the results more relevant, not because of SEO tweeks - even thogh those tweeks are what uncovered the weaknesses in your algo. If your damn algorith was so accurate, I couldn't have manipulated it now could I? Just cause your algo was susceptible to some fool putting his keywords on a page 1000 times doesn't mean it's some SEO guys fault.
I do search for a living, and I deal with "SEO" people every day. I have never met a single one whose actual advice to their clients was "Content is king, provide the best available information, and you will succeed"You deal with Spammers. I tell my clients not to waste time on get to the top quick routes cause it is short lived. I give you search guys enough credit to eventually come up with a solid algo, and when that happens no website I have consulted on will be dropped. Because content IS king. Also, SEO goes alot deeper than site building. There is a human element to it also. Understanding what and how your customers look for things, and catering to them is harder that "Hey put your key words on your webpages every 15 words and make sure they're in bold."
In the real world, the people who need good search results wish you would close up shop and get a job serving burgers and fries. At least there your clients are expecting to be buying shit.
People buy shit on the web moron. And I work for them. If you want to go yell at some guy who's interfering with people doing research on Cancer, then be my guest. But people who come to my websites purchase things, alot of things to be exact. What, did I magically SEO them into handing over their money? I don't think so. Your condescending attitude show you know nothing of Ecommerce or the changing business world. Just your little acre of it.
FOAD - Typical coming from an AC loser. I have shamed myself by even responding to you.Look, SEO can be broken into two camps just like system security - Black and White. Good guys will tell you to build your pages with good content, and get meaningful links to other like minded sites. WE (I'm an SEO guy) do this to keep your site insulated from the fluctuating Google algorithm. Now, unscrupulous SEO guys will employ cloaking techniques or generate Link farms to up their PR, in turn effecting their organic ranking. This has a quick, short term effect that usually results in getting banned or penalized.
Here's a scenario for you. What if you have two competing, well built sites with great content on the same subject? How does one get the edge? SEO, that's how. You can restructure they way your code is layed out to have an affect on how the spiders "see" your site. This is NOT cloaking because the human sees the same exact page as the spider.Whoever modded this post as insightful doesn't know what they're talking about. The truth of the matter is, when good SEO is employed - you don't even know about it. I can look at a website and in 5 seconds detirmine if it has employed SEO techniques. Your average surfer, and more importantly your average tech guy, cannot. Most high ranking sites employ SEO, not all are link farms.
Uhhh, Microsoft EMEA sounds like the entity. And in the same court the EU sued Microsoft in. What are you an Idiot? Oh, forgot, you're an AC. LOL.
Bundling software with the OS and assigning those programs as default is not forcing a monopoly. You cannot blame the apathy of the consumer on the Vendor.
I agree somewhat with disliking the inability to uninstall certain pieces of software, but thats not quite going to cut it as far as defining Microsoft as a Monopoly. It doesn't prevent users from using OTHER software does it? I mean, if Windows refused to allow you to install Winamp or iTunes or an Office alternative - THEN you have a monopoly.
Just because a company has a commanding share of the market doesn't make make it a Monopoly. People CHOOSE Windows, they aren't forced to buy it. Your average user Reads email, makes some text and spreadsheet docs, and surfs the Internet. I think all the OS's do that.What's this media lock in you speak of? Sorry Windows didn't default to your favorite Open Source alternative, but thats not their job. There are free alternatives to Windows Media Player, and alot are better. It's just that, well, the consumer doesn't give a shit. If it does what they need it to well enough, they will accept that.
I guess it's also Microsoft's fault that Apple's OS's heven't played as many games as Windows has. Maybe Microsoft has a Monopoly on the PC gaming market too!Read an economics book, when the demand consistently ignores alternatives, the alternatives are what are what need improvement. This, "give us a chance" rhetoric is crap. If the alternative products were better, the consumer would buy it. iPods and Playstations are just two examples of this.
And just because your prefered product doesn't have the Lion's share of the market, doesn't make the leader a monopoly.I shall now get modded into the ground.
Also, Microsoft would have legal ground to argue that the EU enforces copyright law selectively, and thereby could sue the EU. I'm pretty sure Microsoft has the cash to do that. While I'm not so sure the EU has their act together enough to defend against it.
Then time the thing to scream about 15 minutes before re-entry.
That should keep the Aliens away for a bit.Did the ants just come along and find the anthill prebuilt and move in? No, they took resources around them, arranged them in a manner they saw fit, and used the resulting product for their own ends.
Just because our process is more complicated and advanced doesn't make it unnatural. We didn't majic matter out of thin air. We processed resources around us to form larger more complex resources. We organized our processes for doing such, and shared them with others of our species. How is this unnatural?The human ego is so audacious that we take our accomplishements out the context of our environment and claim they meta-exist.
Since when did refining something immediately remove it from naturally existing and place it in the supernatural category?Fact is, you're gonna die of something. In my opinion, cancer is a natural cause of death. Now, it may be abberant concerning the human system, but I wouldn't go and say it is unnatural. I do acknowledge that there are environmemtal factors that will increase the likely hood of developing cancer, but I just don't feel comfortable with out human definitions of what is and isn't natural.
If it exists, it seems to be natural, because it exists in nature. Even if it is an environment that we transformed around us. Ant's build anthills, and we consider that nature, yet our own houses are not considered in the same light.My personal take on this; and I am not a biologist or Oncologist, is that the process of cooking animal protein is what gives it its carcinogenic qualities.
Good luck finding a substantial test group to eat raw animal protiens till mortality.Almost all profesional tools accept importing of those files. Adobe gives out the specs for these file formats so there is no reverse engineering.
This should be modded as a troll.