Both virus detection and virus creation need the same skill set. Gather information sounds just stupid, as hackers can read the disassembly anyway, and it's not exactly secret how antiviruses operate. It's just that both have the same skill-set and are interested in similar things.
It was Google that declined to renew the Twitter deal when it expired. Likewise, Facebook allowed similar access to Google that Bing has, but again, Google declined.
Why should Google pay for the privilege of promoting Twitter and Facebook?
They aren't paying for the privilege of promoting Twitter and Facebook, they're paying for the privilege of accessing them to use them search rating valutations.. They do it already, but in limited scope. When site is mentioned in Facebook or Twitter (now only publicly), it affects their rankings. They use them as metric. Likewise they can use it for targeting advertising.
How is that relevant at all? Or are you just too stupid to come up with valid arguments? The fact that they're not 1:1 companies doesn't matter at all when talking about their platforms. And Facebook does allow you to transfer data out of their servers, just like Google does. With Microsoft you hold that data all the time, so it's the less evil and locking down of them all.
Because Facebook's problem isn't that Google doesn't index the results properly, but that Google has a nice platform from which to advertise its own products. Kinda like how Facebook has a nice platform from where to advertise Facebook products.
Just like Microsoft has a nice platform to advertise Office, Internet Explorer and other MS products? There's no problem if any of them does that, then?
It was Google that declined to renew the Twitter deal when it expired. Likewise, Facebook allowed similar access to Google that Bing has, but again, Google declined.
Slashdot Mirror
Both virus detection and virus creation need the same skill set. Gather information sounds just stupid, as hackers can read the disassembly anyway, and it's not exactly secret how antiviruses operate. It's just that both have the same skill-set and are interested in similar things.
Why should Google pay for the privilege of promoting Twitter and Facebook?
They aren't paying for the privilege of promoting Twitter and Facebook, they're paying for the privilege of accessing them to use them search rating valutations.. They do it already, but in limited scope. When site is mentioned in Facebook or Twitter (now only publicly), it affects their rankings. They use them as metric. Likewise they can use it for targeting advertising.
How is that relevant at all? Or are you just too stupid to come up with valid arguments? The fact that they're not 1:1 companies doesn't matter at all when talking about their platforms. And Facebook does allow you to transfer data out of their servers, just like Google does. With Microsoft you hold that data all the time, so it's the less evil and locking down of them all.
Because Facebook's problem isn't that Google doesn't index the results properly, but that Google has a nice platform from which to advertise its own products. Kinda like how Facebook has a nice platform from where to advertise Facebook products.
Just like Microsoft has a nice platform to advertise Office, Internet Explorer and other MS products? There's no problem if any of them does that, then?
It was Google that declined to renew the Twitter deal when it expired. Likewise, Facebook allowed similar access to Google that Bing has, but again, Google declined.