> This just sounds like some rich asshat trying to find a sneaky way around having been caught with an illegal ID.
Laws only protect poor non-asshats? I thought everyone was equal under the law.
Saying that someone shouldn't have the remedy of the law available to them just because you don't like them is the first step down the path to Nazi Germany.
> It doesn't matter what you thought, meant, felt, whatever. It's how the receiver felt.
Really? In that case, I feel threatened by your post and am calling the police. The fact that people like you are out in society scares me to the point that I can't sleep at night. STOP TERRORIZING ME!
The difference is that Performics will have someone read this to you, and then bill you. Not exactly a conflict of interests for Google, since they're already providing this information anyway.
> It's a conflict of interest if they continue to offer Doubleclick's Performics services, but it's an invaluable tool if they use it properly.
How? Performics' main services are affiliate marketing (like AdSense, but commission-based), and re-selling Google ads (Dart Search). Both businesses are a nice compliment to Google, and should make them a lot of money. Dart Search does let clients buy ads from MSN / Ask / Yahoo / etc., though, which could be a problem. That's the only stick bit though.
> Something says it would be more polite if Google were to close the Performics division outright and then reverse-engineer its tactics to stomp out SEO-spam companies.
The media is totally blowing this out of proportion. NSO (natural search optimization) is a very very small part of Performics. And even then, they're not doing anything evil. They are doing really simple things like telling people to use text instead of images of text, etc. It's really trivial, and there are maybe 3 employees (out of 300+ at pfx) that are involved.
I'm so tired of reading about GoogleClick. All the articles are totally wrong, and the commenters are even farther off. Google + DoubleClick is no big deal. Google wants to start selling graphical ads, and they want DoubleClick's clients. It's that simple.
Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 1
I disagree. Most people shouldn't be driving cars at all. I've seen people run over at 15mph because someone's talking on their cell phone. Those people are deadly regardless of the car, driving conditions, speed limit, etc.
> If they don't patent their "trivial things" they would leave themselves open to being sued by shareholders because they exposed themselves by not doing so.
OK, maybe. You're saying that some shareholder (probably not a tech, of course) would some day notice that microsoft didn't patent "Method for moving a cursor via a foot-pedal". He would then organize a lawsuit against microsoft for this reason?
Is anyone that insane? Does anyone have that much free time?
Kids aren't responsible for murdering people but they are responsible for missing school to go to a deposition that doesn't even apply to them? I think it's time to overthrow the government, or something.
In today's world, it's more like The Collection Of Powerless States that All Do The Same Thing Even Thought That's Not Necessarily Legally Required. Sure, states can set the drinking age to anything... but then they don't get any money from the federal government.
Seconded. I have their "cheap" Micro DAC and Micro Amp and the sound is phenomenal. It's an amazing difference compared with my iPod (or my work laptop, but you know that's crap). I'm planning on getting one of their tube systems soon, and bringing the Micro stack to work. Should be enjoyable:)
By your logic, you are spyware. Since you know about popularity-contest, you obviously use Debian or Ubuntu. IMFORMATION LEAK! YOU ARE SPYING ON YOURSELF.
Wait. Does that argument make me sound like a complete and utter idiot? Now you know how you sound.
> Using the typical logic, he apparently didn't protect his machine well enough, so it's okay, right? Oh, but he's on the malicious side, so he's right, and the University trying to protect itself, from someone violating just about every University policy with no expectation of privacy on the network of a public research university, is wrong?
Problem with your logic there. If the University thinks being hacked is wrong, then why do they think hacking someone else is right? Two wrongs don't make a right. The hacker is a criminal, and the University (employee that did the hacking) is a criminal. It's that simple.
Blackboard does absolutely nothing special. It's a web page with some links to other HTML pages. There's no reason why it shouldn't work in IE, other than really really really really invalid HTML.
Guess what, Blackboard... there are standards (and QA teams) for a reason!
What exactly is evil about DoubleClick? If you don't want the cookie, you can either not visit sites that use DoubleClick, or you can opt out of the tracking cookie:
The version of firefox from the firefox website is proprietary software, hence they chose the MPL. If you build firefox yourself you can use it under the [L]GPL.
> Linux gets orphaned processes all the time, and you'd be blind without a method to view what's running on your machine.
No it doesn't.
But that's not what he's talking about. To log into Windows, you have to press Ctrl-Alt-Delete before Windows will show you a login screen. Linux just boots up to a "username: " prompt.
Slashdot Mirror
> will hurt people too
The content providers, yes.
> This just sounds like some rich asshat trying to find a sneaky way around having been caught with an illegal ID.
Laws only protect poor non-asshats? I thought everyone was equal under the law.
Saying that someone shouldn't have the remedy of the law available to them just because you don't like them is the first step down the path to Nazi Germany.
> It doesn't matter what you thought, meant, felt, whatever. It's how the receiver felt.
Really? In that case, I feel threatened by your post and am calling the police. The fact that people like you are out in society scares me to the point that I can't sleep at night. STOP TERRORIZING ME!
> That's not neologism. That's just stupidity.
Unfortunately, 99% of people in our society are stupid.
Google is already providing "SEO" information:
e r.py?answer=40349&topic=8522
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answ
The difference is that Performics will have someone read this to you, and then bill you. Not exactly a conflict of interests for Google, since they're already providing this information anyway.
> It's a conflict of interest if they continue to offer Doubleclick's Performics services, but it's an invaluable tool if they use it properly.
How? Performics' main services are affiliate marketing (like AdSense, but commission-based), and re-selling Google ads (Dart Search). Both businesses are a nice compliment to Google, and should make them a lot of money. Dart Search does let clients buy ads from MSN / Ask / Yahoo / etc., though, which could be a problem. That's the only stick bit though.
> Something says it would be more polite if Google were to close the Performics division outright and then reverse-engineer its tactics to stomp out SEO-spam companies.
The media is totally blowing this out of proportion. NSO (natural search optimization) is a very very small part of Performics. And even then, they're not doing anything evil. They are doing really simple things like telling people to use text instead of images of text, etc. It's really trivial, and there are maybe 3 employees (out of 300+ at pfx) that are involved.
I'm so tired of reading about GoogleClick. All the articles are totally wrong, and the commenters are even farther off. Google + DoubleClick is no big deal. Google wants to start selling graphical ads, and they want DoubleClick's clients. It's that simple.
I disagree. Most people shouldn't be driving cars at all. I've seen people run over at 15mph because someone's talking on their cell phone. Those people are deadly regardless of the car, driving conditions, speed limit, etc.
> If they don't patent their "trivial things" they would leave themselves open to being sued by shareholders because they exposed themselves by not doing so.
OK, maybe. You're saying that some shareholder (probably not a tech, of course) would some day notice that microsoft didn't patent "Method for moving a cursor via a foot-pedal". He would then organize a lawsuit against microsoft for this reason?
Is anyone that insane? Does anyone have that much free time?
> You misspelt "two".
You misspelled "misspelled".
Kids aren't responsible for murdering people but they are responsible for missing school to go to a deposition that doesn't even apply to them? I think it's time to overthrow the government, or something.
> The Losely Associated States of America
In today's world, it's more like The Collection Of Powerless States that All Do The Same Thing Even Thought That's Not Necessarily Legally Required. Sure, states can set the drinking age to anything... but then they don't get any money from the federal government.
Freedom indeed.
Your post doesn't make sense. "They can't implement a feature that could be implemented as a plugin, so plugins are a bad idea."
What?
Seconded. I have their "cheap" Micro DAC and Micro Amp and the sound is phenomenal. It's an amazing difference compared with my iPod (or my work laptop, but you know that's crap). I'm planning on getting one of their tube systems soon, and bringing the Micro stack to work. Should be enjoyable :)
By your logic, you are spyware. Since you know about popularity-contest, you obviously use Debian or Ubuntu. IMFORMATION LEAK! YOU ARE SPYING ON YOURSELF.
Wait. Does that argument make me sound like a complete and utter idiot? Now you know how you sound.
Does the phrase overthrow the government mean anything to you?
The court belongs to the people, not the government.
> Using the typical logic, he apparently didn't protect his machine well enough, so it's okay, right? Oh, but he's on the malicious side, so he's right, and the University trying to protect itself, from someone violating just about every University policy with no expectation of privacy on the network of a public research university, is wrong?
Problem with your logic there. If the University thinks being hacked is wrong, then why do they think hacking someone else is right? Two wrongs don't make a right. The hacker is a criminal, and the University (employee that did the hacking) is a criminal. It's that simple.
Blackboard does absolutely nothing special. It's a web page with some links to other HTML pages. There's no reason why it shouldn't work in IE, other than really really really really invalid HTML.
Guess what, Blackboard... there are standards (and QA teams) for a reason!
What exactly is evil about DoubleClick? If you don't want the cookie, you can either not visit sites that use DoubleClick, or you can opt out of the tracking cookie:
r ivacy/dart_adserving.asp
http://www.doubleclick.com/us/about_doubleclick/p
DoubleClick is pretty darn non-evil, unless you hate advertising for some reason.
The version of firefox from the firefox website is proprietary software, hence they chose the MPL. If you build firefox yourself you can use it under the [L]GPL.
> Oh and Firefox is distributed under the Mozilla Public License not the GPL.
That's incorrect. Firefox is tri-licensed -- LGPL, GPL, and MPL. You get to pick which one you want.
Acid2 is a test of inaccuracy, not accuracy. Correct browsers should display "this document is not valid", not that fucked up smiley face.
All signals can be handled or ignored, except SIGKILL (which is not what C-c sends; it sends SIGINT).
> Linux gets orphaned processes all the time, and you'd be blind without a method to view what's running on your machine.
No it doesn't.
But that's not what he's talking about. To log into Windows, you have to press Ctrl-Alt-Delete before Windows will show you a login screen. Linux just boots up to a "username: " prompt.