No, the AC said it was unlikely that he was using the same definition that you're claiming he's using, because it's obscure.
Which it is. I've never heard Quota used for anything other than enforced numbers before. And simply making an effort to encourage highly qualified members of each of a group of diverse communities shouldn't be controversial, so forgive the rest of the world if we think it's a reasonable assumption that someone who responds to a "I think making the hiring process more inclusive of women and other minorities might be a good idea" with "You want QUOTAS! Boooo!!!" is someone who's trying to derail a thread by making it look like something's being called for that isn't being.
The danger is that, however unlikely, a research paper into "things going viral" will itself go viral, causing a recursive event that leads to a singularity, destroying human civilization as we know it.
The old man looked pale, and I instinctively took a step back, fearing he would run away. "I don't mean to hurt you, I just..."
The rubble here still seemed to smoulder. The Event had been so long ago, and yet the ghosts of the great city that once stood proudly here were all around us.
"I know you know who I am", he said.
"Professor P. Duckworth", I nodded, "Famous for your research into cat videos in the early 2000s."
He sighed. "You must think I'm a monster".
"No, not at all, and if we're to rebuild..."
The professor shook his head.
"I read your paper", I said, "The one that started this all. 'How Kitten playing in Kitchen with Yarn (kittiesrcool/YouTube 2015) Interacts With Social Recognizance in a Memeic Interconnected Social Mesh'. It has the clues we need to rebu..."
Professor Duckworth looked alarmed. "That paper", he spat. "That paper! I should have destroyed it when I had the chance!"
I reached out to the professor's shoulder but he stepped back.
"Get away from me! All of you!"
"We're saying you can undo the damage! Please, Professor, it wasn't your fault, and you can..."
My wrist communicator beeped and vibrated. I started to move my arm towards my face, ready to read the incoming message.
The screen crackled, and a voice uttered the words "We knew you would try this. We knew you would find Professor Duckworth"
"Who is this?" I demanded.
The screen went black, and then switched to a video. The familiar view of a kitchen, circa 2015, came into view, blurry, taken with a cameraphone perhaps. As the edge of a cat bed came into view, I began to panic."
"Stop! Take it off your wrists!" screamed the professor, running towards me. "Save yourself! Save yourself!"
The professor tore off my communicator, and ran into the city. "No!", I shouted after him, "Throw it away! Throw it away!"
And with a blinding flash of light, the communicator discharged the memeapon. The professor, now the six billionth victim of his creation, was now no more.
Yep. All of these companies (and Germany's Siemens who are supplying AAF and a lot of State commuter systems) have US manufacturing plants specifically to be compliant with this requirement.
Based upon your Americans comment, I'm assuming "our consumers" means American consumers. I say this not to be an ass, but to point something out: Almost all US passenger train buying is subject to "Buy America" rules. Even All Aboard Florida, the private operator in Florida, feels they have to go with that rule lest they be prevented from taking advantage of numerous government programs that attempt to correct the balance between "The government can borrow money on the cheap to build roads" and "Private rail companies have to borrow at market rates, which are high because they have very little that's seen as collateral by banks, and they don't have the weight of the taxpayer behind them."
So Chinese HSR equipment vendor mergers are unlikely to have much affect n the US environment, in the near or medium future anyway.
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
Heh, everytime I go by the laptops section in any large store that sells electronics, there's always a few Netbooks (usually not described as such, just as small laptops costing around $2-300.)
The "Netbooks are dead' meme has never made much sense to me. The marketing has changed. Indeed, I believe someone out there, maybe HP, is introducing some kind of small $200 laptop that runs Windows 8.1...
Regardless of whether it's a winnable option or not, it would be nice to see it. I'd like to mark an explicit no vote against my current congressional candidates, but as it is, under the current system, I can only not vote in that election, and a non-vote can mean anything from "I don't care" to "I didn't do any research". There's no way to distinguish between those and actual disapproval of the candidates.
We need a disapproval option, regardless of whether it results in an election being rerun. We need politicians to understand that they're losing votes by the local media decide their issues and stances, or letting the loudest but most moronic pressure groups to do the same thing.
It may be "intimidation", but it's stupid. Any pol who forces someone to vote who dislikes the pol now because they felt they were forced to vote is shooting themselves in the foot. And simply turning up to vote in this country means very little in terms of whether you participated in an election. You can spoil your ballot. Or you can put in a vote for dogcatcher, and ignore the Federal races altogether. Or whatever.
Me, for myself, I'll probably be voting for Governor this year, albeit reluctantly (we have a "Tea Party" Republican running vs a "Moderate Republican" who can't get the support of his own party any more so defected to the Democrats in my state. But the TP guy is sufficiently awful I feel obliged to vote for the person I can't trust - the former has done things I adamantly oppose and virtually nothing of consequence I support, the latter has done many things I respect and/or support.)
But the other races? On the critically important issues the candidates in all races simply oppose my point of view, and do so for utterly cynical reasons. I can't even pick a "lesser evil" among them, so I'll be leaving that part of my ballot blank.
So I will/won't be on someone's list as a terrible/rightous person, which may/may not (actually will not, let's be honest) get mailed to everyone in the country. So what? You will be able to tell literally nothing from my presence or lack of presence on that list.
Nothing. It's an empty threat. Ignore it. If you want to respond to it, respond in the sense of adding it as a data point about the trustworthiness and decency of the group that sent it to you. But otherwise ignore it.
Neither HTTP, nor HTTPS with an untrusted certificate, are secure.
However, you don't expect HTTP to be secure. You do expect HTTPS to be secure. That's what the 'S' stands for.
Therefore, if a self signed certificate is used, and you haven't added your authority to your browser, the browser will warn you that something you expect to be secure isn't necessarily, and prompts you to check that you are, indeed, using the right certificate, and someone isn't intercepting your communications.
Every browser in the world allows you to add your own CA so you can use self-signed certificates without further prompting. If you've chosen not to, it's fairly reasonable for them to say "Wait, this guy has explicitly asked for a secure connection, but I have no way of verifying this connection is secure: I better say what I know and ask for further instructions."
$20 per channel? Seems improbable, as HBO (and other ad free subscription networks) charges much less than that for a bundle of channels featuring original content. And while I hesitate to mention the BBC, given differences in salaries and other overheads US vs UK TV production, that provides, what, four TV channels (or is it five now? I've been out of the UK for a while), a similar number of radio channels, all with wide regional variations, and a symphony orchestra, for approximately $250 a year.
Even if you meant "For their entire cable service", nobody watches all the cable channels, and nobody would buy a service intended to replace all the cable channels they currently watch. In addition, your cable bill is already significantly infrastructure heavy. We're talking here about you paying for the infrastructure seperately. Cable TV bill replaced by Internet bill, plus channel subscription bill. You may, over all, pay nearly $20 extra per month with this arrangement, but you're getting far more anyway.
Google Talk/Hangouts does what you're describing. Google Voice is the enhanced voicemail system. While there's some integration between the two, they're not the same thing.
Does anyone run "strings" on files they know enough to "trust"? It's essentially a "What the hell is this file? Let me see if it has any useful text strings in it that might give me a hint" tool.
Because driving fucking sucks? Is that seriously not a good enough reason?
"What did you do today dear?"
"Oh, I guided a fast moving metal box between two painted lines on some tarmac, during which time if I made any errors I was likely to KILL SOMEBODY which may at best have been ME, so I had to concentrate on that for thirty minutes. Then I did some work. Then I spent another thirty minutes of my life that I'll never get back guiding the metal box back home."
Yeah, that sure sounds like a good use of my time. Great idea, surburbanism imposing assholes, use building codes and zoning to destroy downtowns across the country and force everyone out of cities, so that homes and businesses that serve homes and, well, pretty much any destination you're likely to need to go to, needs a fucking car ride to get there.
It is a threat to humanity. AI these days is used to create "automatic" music playlists, to "customize" query results helpfully omitting everything you were actually looking for, etc. More than one time I've wanted to throw the f---ing computer out the window as a helpful AI bot has prevented me from getting done what I needed to do.
Can you imagine how many people will get killed by defenestrated computers and smartphones if this trend gets worse?
Yes, yes, they can. As long as the company over all remains profitable (and Amazon is usually profitable - albeit not dramatically, but its share price is based largely on expected growth rather than EPS anyway) then it can wave away losses from loss making departments as long as those losses are (1) contained, (2) easily reversed, and (3) worth doing if they in the business's long term interest.
No idea. My guess is as all Mac OS X versions are "upgrades" they'd have to either figure out a fair market price for the operating system, or go back to the clone era (the last time Mac OS was sold), and add to the cost of a licensed clone license the lowest cost upgrade chain to get to the current version of the OS.
I don't know if someone legally upgrade right to Yosemite (assuming suitable hardware upgrades and patches) from Mac OS 8 in the same way as they could Jaguar, assuming they can then Mac OS X can cost the same as an original gray box license.
Or, like I said, the fair market value, but that's harder to quantify. The best I can imagine is getting in an independent third party to do the evaluation of what value OS X has.
Like I said though, Apple at least has control over the retail chain, so they could sidestep quite a bit of this by just requiring the EULA be agreed at the time of sale.
If I'm reading this correctly, the logic is that he can demand a refund if using Mac OS means agreeing to a contract post-sale. It has little or nothing to do with third party PCs.
So, technically, Apple could be forced to determine a refund amount to give to people who buy a Mac without wanting to run Mac OS on it given you need to agree to the EULA when you turn on the machine for the first time. But they can also sidestep it in the majority of cases by using the control they have over the Mac sales chain to force sellers of Macs (including the Apple Store itself) to have the buyer accept the EULA at the time of purchase.
Yeah, we all forget that Microsoft peaked in 1982 and has subsequently been losing money ever since. You should see how much money they lost when they took advantage of the PC's success to bundle Windows with MS DOS.
It's a wonder they didn't go bankrupt in 1995.
(Yes, Microsoft was moderately successful prior to the 1990s. In the 1990s though they both used their high marketshare to establish an actual monopoly, squeezing out competitors like DR, and then used their monopoly to strangle potential future threats, such as Netscape. It wasn't pretty but it was highly profitable, especially the first part.)
Only because they're trying to corner the market. And yes, I'm aware they kind of invented the type of cloud system that they are, but Bezos has been explicit from the beginning that he doesn't want competitors, and he'd rather see a few years of losses with the service underpriced than have a small share of the market.
I personally wouldn't invest in Amazon. That said, overall the company seems sustainable, it can afford to make losses like the one last quarter in part because it can easily reverse those losses if it ever becomes a serious problem. They're playing the "very long" game, everything they do seems to be aimed at ensuring they're a significant player 50 years from now. To me, that's absurd, you can't predict the future like that, but, hey, if they want to try - with other investor's money - then more power to them, it's that kind of attitude that moves us forward - usually.
Counterpoint: They invented FAT, which is where significant amounts of the royalties are coming from.
Counter-counterpoint: If they invented FAT, and Android Phones are feeling obliged to support it, they should probably be paying Android phone manufacturers $20 per unit...
(OTOH, FAT was a significant improvement on the CP/M file system, its biggest rival at that point, so there's that. Still, it says a lot that the actual FAT related patents they're collecting Android revenue on are actually for hacks to get around some of FAT's most stupid LIMITATI.ONS)
This is another typical misrepresentation by the Surface Pro Justice Warriors: we are so NOT about being upset about the Surface Pro existing, no, what we're concerned about are ethics in gaming journalism.
Actually, they wanted their work featured on Google News and get paid for it.
I know. Why do you think they want to be compensated for it, if, as the original poster argued, the mere presence of their work in search results is positive compared to search results existing where they're not present?
Their problem is the existence of search results to begin with. They want compensation from the fact they have to exist in an environment that's actively hostile towards the way they're structured, and they don't see an easy way to adapt to that environment.
20 years ago, you woke up in the morning, heard a "phhhpmp" at the front door, went over, saw the newspaper that you pay to get delivered every morning on your carpet under the letterbox, would grab it, take it to the table, make yourself breakfast, and then read. You'd read news from that newsppaer. That newspaper would take on the honored (or not so honored in some paper's cases) role and responsibility of guiding you through what's happening in the world. To that paper, that position was a relationship to be developed, nurtured, built upon. Your loyal readers would come back day after day, they'd actually subscribe.
Today, you visit a website on your tablet, phone, or PC, usually multiple times a day. Britney Spears' nosejob is a click away from your Twitter stream to the CNN website. An email comes in, and you, on the recommendation of your friend, reading a Huffington Post article about cats. Then you get another email from your mother, and you're on healthy-stuff.com reading about the seven fruits that might stop you getting cancer. Oh, and a person walks by your desk, and says "Did you hear? OMG you didn't? It's everywhere, terrorists just attacked the Dallas book depository, hundreds dead!", and where do you go?
Well, Google, You go to Google. You enter "dallas", and you already have a choice of articles to read, but you click on "More news about Dallas" and there are 50,000 breaking news articles about the incident at the book depository, including articles from news organizations you've never heard of, that are local to Dallas, whose views and coverage you'll respect for this one story... and then never visit again.
At no point have you ever said "You know, I'm going to get my news from the St Olaf Bugle, I'm looking forward to reading it tomorrow."
That is what they're afraid of. That's why several publishers are getting out of the newspaper business altogether, it's why Rupert Murdoch keeps doing stupid things like buying social media networks and starting enewspapers for tablets, and it's why German newspapers are not overly enthusiastic about having their work featured on Google News.
As a postscript, a journalist who did something similar to what I did, writes here about his experience. Again, if you (as seems increasingly unlikely) really are concerned about corruption in journalism, you should probably stop telling people who ask for examples to go off and do their own research.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the AC said it was unlikely that he was using the same definition that you're claiming he's using, because it's obscure.
Which it is. I've never heard Quota used for anything other than enforced numbers before. And simply making an effort to encourage highly qualified members of each of a group of diverse communities shouldn't be controversial, so forgive the rest of the world if we think it's a reasonable assumption that someone who responds to a "I think making the hiring process more inclusive of women and other minorities might be a good idea" with "You want QUOTAS! Boooo!!!" is someone who's trying to derail a thread by making it look like something's being called for that isn't being.
The danger is that, however unlikely, a research paper into "things going viral" will itself go viral, causing a recursive event that leads to a singularity, destroying human civilization as we know it.
The old man looked pale, and I instinctively took a step back, fearing he would run away. "I don't mean to hurt you, I just..."
The rubble here still seemed to smoulder. The Event had been so long ago, and yet the ghosts of the great city that once stood proudly here were all around us.
"I know you know who I am", he said.
"Professor P. Duckworth", I nodded, "Famous for your research into cat videos in the early 2000s."
He sighed. "You must think I'm a monster".
"No, not at all, and if we're to rebuild..."
The professor shook his head.
"I read your paper", I said, "The one that started this all. 'How Kitten playing in Kitchen with Yarn (kittiesrcool/YouTube 2015) Interacts With Social Recognizance in a Memeic Interconnected Social Mesh'. It has the clues we need to rebu..."
Professor Duckworth looked alarmed. "That paper", he spat. "That paper! I should have destroyed it when I had the chance!"
I reached out to the professor's shoulder but he stepped back.
"Get away from me! All of you!"
"We're saying you can undo the damage! Please, Professor, it wasn't your fault, and you can..."
My wrist communicator beeped and vibrated. I started to move my arm towards my face, ready to read the incoming message.
The screen crackled, and a voice uttered the words "We knew you would try this. We knew you would find Professor Duckworth"
"Who is this?" I demanded.
The screen went black, and then switched to a video. The familiar view of a kitchen, circa 2015, came into view, blurry, taken with a cameraphone perhaps. As the edge of a cat bed came into view, I began to panic."
"Stop! Take it off your wrists!" screamed the professor, running towards me. "Save yourself! Save yourself!"
The professor tore off my communicator, and ran into the city. "No!", I shouted after him, "Throw it away! Throw it away!"
And with a blinding flash of light, the communicator discharged the memeapon. The professor, now the six billionth victim of his creation, was now no more.
Yep. All of these companies (and Germany's Siemens who are supplying AAF and a lot of State commuter systems) have US manufacturing plants specifically to be compliant with this requirement.
Based upon your Americans comment, I'm assuming "our consumers" means American consumers. I say this not to be an ass, but to point something out: Almost all US passenger train buying is subject to "Buy America" rules. Even All Aboard Florida, the private operator in Florida, feels they have to go with that rule lest they be prevented from taking advantage of numerous government programs that attempt to correct the balance between "The government can borrow money on the cheap to build roads" and "Private rail companies have to borrow at market rates, which are high because they have very little that's seen as collateral by banks, and they don't have the weight of the taxpayer behind them."
So Chinese HSR equipment vendor mergers are unlikely to have much affect n the US environment, in the near or medium future anyway.
Well, they may have decided it's worth merging, but found legal barriers preventing them from doing so.
Heh, everytime I go by the laptops section in any large store that sells electronics, there's always a few Netbooks (usually not described as such, just as small laptops costing around $2-300.)
The "Netbooks are dead' meme has never made much sense to me. The marketing has changed. Indeed, I believe someone out there, maybe HP, is introducing some kind of small $200 laptop that runs Windows 8.1...
Regardless of whether it's a winnable option or not, it would be nice to see it. I'd like to mark an explicit no vote against my current congressional candidates, but as it is, under the current system, I can only not vote in that election, and a non-vote can mean anything from "I don't care" to "I didn't do any research". There's no way to distinguish between those and actual disapproval of the candidates.
We need a disapproval option, regardless of whether it results in an election being rerun. We need politicians to understand that they're losing votes by the local media decide their issues and stances, or letting the loudest but most moronic pressure groups to do the same thing.
Relax, seriously.
It may be "intimidation", but it's stupid. Any pol who forces someone to vote who dislikes the pol now because they felt they were forced to vote is shooting themselves in the foot. And simply turning up to vote in this country means very little in terms of whether you participated in an election. You can spoil your ballot. Or you can put in a vote for dogcatcher, and ignore the Federal races altogether. Or whatever.
Me, for myself, I'll probably be voting for Governor this year, albeit reluctantly (we have a "Tea Party" Republican running vs a "Moderate Republican" who can't get the support of his own party any more so defected to the Democrats in my state. But the TP guy is sufficiently awful I feel obliged to vote for the person I can't trust - the former has done things I adamantly oppose and virtually nothing of consequence I support, the latter has done many things I respect and/or support.)
But the other races? On the critically important issues the candidates in all races simply oppose my point of view, and do so for utterly cynical reasons. I can't even pick a "lesser evil" among them, so I'll be leaving that part of my ballot blank.
So I will/won't be on someone's list as a terrible/rightous person, which may/may not (actually will not, let's be honest) get mailed to everyone in the country. So what? You will be able to tell literally nothing from my presence or lack of presence on that list.
Nothing. It's an empty threat. Ignore it. If you want to respond to it, respond in the sense of adding it as a data point about the trustworthiness and decency of the group that sent it to you. But otherwise ignore it.
It's quite simple:
Neither HTTP, nor HTTPS with an untrusted certificate, are secure.
However, you don't expect HTTP to be secure. You do expect HTTPS to be secure. That's what the 'S' stands for.
Therefore, if a self signed certificate is used, and you haven't added your authority to your browser, the browser will warn you that something you expect to be secure isn't necessarily, and prompts you to check that you are, indeed, using the right certificate, and someone isn't intercepting your communications.
Every browser in the world allows you to add your own CA so you can use self-signed certificates without further prompting. If you've chosen not to, it's fairly reasonable for them to say "Wait, this guy has explicitly asked for a secure connection, but I have no way of verifying this connection is secure: I better say what I know and ask for further instructions."
$20 per channel? Seems improbable, as HBO (and other ad free subscription networks) charges much less than that for a bundle of channels featuring original content. And while I hesitate to mention the BBC, given differences in salaries and other overheads US vs UK TV production, that provides, what, four TV channels (or is it five now? I've been out of the UK for a while), a similar number of radio channels, all with wide regional variations, and a symphony orchestra, for approximately $250 a year.
Even if you meant "For their entire cable service", nobody watches all the cable channels, and nobody would buy a service intended to replace all the cable channels they currently watch. In addition, your cable bill is already significantly infrastructure heavy. We're talking here about you paying for the infrastructure seperately. Cable TV bill replaced by Internet bill, plus channel subscription bill. You may, over all, pay nearly $20 extra per month with this arrangement, but you're getting far more anyway.
Google Talk/Hangouts does what you're describing. Google Voice is the enhanced voicemail system. While there's some integration between the two, they're not the same thing.
Does anyone run "strings" on files they know enough to "trust"? It's essentially a "What the hell is this file? Let me see if it has any useful text strings in it that might give me a hint" tool.
Because driving fucking sucks? Is that seriously not a good enough reason?
"What did you do today dear?"
"Oh, I guided a fast moving metal box between two painted lines on some tarmac, during which time if I made any errors I was likely to KILL SOMEBODY which may at best have been ME, so I had to concentrate on that for thirty minutes. Then I did some work. Then I spent another thirty minutes of my life that I'll never get back guiding the metal box back home."
Yeah, that sure sounds like a good use of my time. Great idea, surburbanism imposing assholes, use building codes and zoning to destroy downtowns across the country and force everyone out of cities, so that homes and businesses that serve homes and, well, pretty much any destination you're likely to need to go to, needs a fucking car ride to get there.
It is a threat to humanity. AI these days is used to create "automatic" music playlists, to "customize" query results helpfully omitting everything you were actually looking for, etc. More than one time I've wanted to throw the f---ing computer out the window as a helpful AI bot has prevented me from getting done what I needed to do.
Can you imagine how many people will get killed by defenestrated computers and smartphones if this trend gets worse?
Yes, yes, they can. As long as the company over all remains profitable (and Amazon is usually profitable - albeit not dramatically, but its share price is based largely on expected growth rather than EPS anyway) then it can wave away losses from loss making departments as long as those losses are (1) contained, (2) easily reversed, and (3) worth doing if they in the business's long term interest.
No idea. My guess is as all Mac OS X versions are "upgrades" they'd have to either figure out a fair market price for the operating system, or go back to the clone era (the last time Mac OS was sold), and add to the cost of a licensed clone license the lowest cost upgrade chain to get to the current version of the OS.
I don't know if someone legally upgrade right to Yosemite (assuming suitable hardware upgrades and patches) from Mac OS 8 in the same way as they could Jaguar, assuming they can then Mac OS X can cost the same as an original gray box license.
Or, like I said, the fair market value, but that's harder to quantify. The best I can imagine is getting in an independent third party to do the evaluation of what value OS X has.
Like I said though, Apple at least has control over the retail chain, so they could sidestep quite a bit of this by just requiring the EULA be agreed at the time of sale.
If I'm reading this correctly, the logic is that he can demand a refund if using Mac OS means agreeing to a contract post-sale. It has little or nothing to do with third party PCs.
So, technically, Apple could be forced to determine a refund amount to give to people who buy a Mac without wanting to run Mac OS on it given you need to agree to the EULA when you turn on the machine for the first time. But they can also sidestep it in the majority of cases by using the control they have over the Mac sales chain to force sellers of Macs (including the Apple Store itself) to have the buyer accept the EULA at the time of purchase.
Yeah, we all forget that Microsoft peaked in 1982 and has subsequently been losing money ever since. You should see how much money they lost when they took advantage of the PC's success to bundle Windows with MS DOS.
It's a wonder they didn't go bankrupt in 1995.
(Yes, Microsoft was moderately successful prior to the 1990s. In the 1990s though they both used their high marketshare to establish an actual monopoly, squeezing out competitors like DR, and then used their monopoly to strangle potential future threats, such as Netscape. It wasn't pretty but it was highly profitable, especially the first part.)
Only because they're trying to corner the market. And yes, I'm aware they kind of invented the type of cloud system that they are, but Bezos has been explicit from the beginning that he doesn't want competitors, and he'd rather see a few years of losses with the service underpriced than have a small share of the market.
I personally wouldn't invest in Amazon. That said, overall the company seems sustainable, it can afford to make losses like the one last quarter in part because it can easily reverse those losses if it ever becomes a serious problem. They're playing the "very long" game, everything they do seems to be aimed at ensuring they're a significant player 50 years from now. To me, that's absurd, you can't predict the future like that, but, hey, if they want to try - with other investor's money - then more power to them, it's that kind of attitude that moves us forward - usually.
Counterpoint: They invented FAT, which is where significant amounts of the royalties are coming from.
Counter-counterpoint: If they invented FAT, and Android Phones are feeling obliged to support it, they should probably be paying Android phone manufacturers $20 per unit...
(OTOH, FAT was a significant improvement on the CP/M file system, its biggest rival at that point, so there's that. Still, it says a lot that the actual FAT related patents they're collecting Android revenue on are actually for hacks to get around some of FAT's most stupid LIMITATI.ONS)
This is another typical misrepresentation by the Surface Pro Justice Warriors: we are so NOT about being upset about the Surface Pro existing, no, what we're concerned about are ethics in gaming journalism.
I know. Why do you think they want to be compensated for it, if, as the original poster argued, the mere presence of their work in search results is positive compared to search results existing where they're not present?
Their problem is the existence of search results to begin with. They want compensation from the fact they have to exist in an environment that's actively hostile towards the way they're structured, and they don't see an easy way to adapt to that environment.
20 years ago, you woke up in the morning, heard a "phhhpmp" at the front door, went over, saw the newspaper that you pay to get delivered every morning on your carpet under the letterbox, would grab it, take it to the table, make yourself breakfast, and then read. You'd read news from that newsppaer. That newspaper would take on the honored (or not so honored in some paper's cases) role and responsibility of guiding you through what's happening in the world. To that paper, that position was a relationship to be developed, nurtured, built upon. Your loyal readers would come back day after day, they'd actually subscribe.
Today, you visit a website on your tablet, phone, or PC, usually multiple times a day. Britney Spears' nosejob is a click away from your Twitter stream to the CNN website. An email comes in, and you, on the recommendation of your friend, reading a Huffington Post article about cats. Then you get another email from your mother, and you're on healthy-stuff.com reading about the seven fruits that might stop you getting cancer. Oh, and a person walks by your desk, and says "Did you hear? OMG you didn't? It's everywhere, terrorists just attacked the Dallas book depository, hundreds dead!", and where do you go?
Well, Google, You go to Google. You enter "dallas", and you already have a choice of articles to read, but you click on "More news about Dallas" and there are 50,000 breaking news articles about the incident at the book depository, including articles from news organizations you've never heard of, that are local to Dallas, whose views and coverage you'll respect for this one story... and then never visit again.
At no point have you ever said "You know, I'm going to get my news from the St Olaf Bugle, I'm looking forward to reading it tomorrow."
That is what they're afraid of. That's why several publishers are getting out of the newspaper business altogether, it's why Rupert Murdoch keeps doing stupid things like buying social media networks and starting enewspapers for tablets, and it's why German newspapers are not overly enthusiastic about having their work featured on Google News.
As a postscript, a journalist who did something similar to what I did, writes here about his experience. Again, if you (as seems increasingly unlikely) really are concerned about corruption in journalism, you should probably stop telling people who ask for examples to go off and do their own research.