No, my point is the tactics are questionably legitimate and are attempts to game the system. They aren't necessary. A company can either be good in its own right and legitimately get a good rank, or they can buy ads, or some combination. Google is neither forcing nor encouraging anyone to do the stupid things the article talks about. If people want to try to get some free/cheap exposure on the sly then that's fine, but I don't want to hear them whining about it.
Its like the people who are too cheap to rent a regular billboard and who don't have a real store, and nobody knows about them. So, they buy some cheap plastic signs and stick them at random intersections. Fine, I can live with the tactic. But, what if they start complaining about how the wind blows their little signs down, people think their business is less classy because their signs have huge letters in obnoxious colors, too many exclamation points, etc.? Should anyone care?
Right, so you pay for some ads. The current system also lets people play games with their content to a reasonable extent to try to get exposure for free. So who cares if someone is whining because they are too cheap to pay up to keep their pretty layout?
A start-up business, that may very well be legitimate, and useful for users searching for it, may not get indexed appropriately or may not be displayed as a relevant hit on google's results page So what you're saying is, a small and/or new business with little traffic won't be ranked high? And the alternative is what? Rank everyone high?
I think there are 3 real options:
1) rank by $$ paid only, you pay more, you are higher, just like the paid ads on the right side of Google. want better rankings? pay up.
2) rank by number of sites that link to you, or some metric that tries to guess how important your site is based on its content. want better rankings? convince people to link to you with little buttons and/or pay some voodoo doctor to please the GoogleBot.
3) The current system. You front the money and get exposure due to ads until your site is important enough that your don't need them anymore, and/or you play the "the link to me, I'm cool" and voodoo games.
I don't understand what the complaint with the current system is and what the proposed solution is.
Lets see... counter examples... how about searching Google for the word "shipping". What do you know, UPS and Fedex are #1 and #2, and their front pages aren't a mess of useless, Google-pleasing crap. Maybe because they are real businesses and aren't pandering some direct ship junk or get rich quick scheme.
I think the most realistic case for Google getting into this is not as a regular WISP, but as a "Wireless Google Service Provider". That is, free wireless access to Google and related services (and companies who have paid them) via their spectrum, and not general internet access (you can already pay your cell phone company for that, as many have pointed out). Then, Google either generates sufficient hype/pressure/etc. to get cell phone manufacturers to add support for this new spectrum & service (and wifi, etc.) into their phones, or sells unlocked Google-capable cell phones directly that you just put your carrier's SIM card in. Oh, also Google partners with Apple to help Apple escape AT&T's control of the iPhone.
Once there is enough revenue/reason to justify it, other spectrum (or the incumbents themselves) can be bought.
I think NASA has some other vehicles which burn liquid hydrogen, the little bit used for some BMWs is probably not even noticed.
Seriously though, I think the theory is that once cars can burn something environmentally friendly like hydrogen (burning it is clean), and the infrastructure to make/transport it is in place, then its almost trivial to later switch between making the hydrogen using coal or whatever vs some better (but currently more expensive) method. Plus, hopefully centralizing the pollution makes it easier to manage. I'm not saying I buy all this, but that seems to be the line of thinking.
Using a good write rest definitely helps a lot... the submitter didn't mention if he tried that, but your wrist's position make a huge difference, as does how often you use keyboard shortcuts vs click on things.
Once people buy them aren't they those people property or is there some way to override this?
Technically you can't use something that is patented without the patent owner's permission. Although I'm sure it would be much easier to block any new games from being sold than to force people to return their PS3, it doesn't really matter... few people will keep their $600 brick when they can get a refund and buy a competing system plus have cash left over.
I have no idea if you can from that height. What's the maximum line-of-sight range of a GSM mast?
I believe 22km is the theoretical limit, so its certainly possible... but most calls on United Flight 93 were on the plane's built-in phones, and not cell phones... until the plane was at around 5,000ft, but they were flying over southeast PA, so maybe there were not many towers or they weren't transmitting with a lot of power...
Ok, but they say adding a token fixes the problem? So, website X shows me a form with some randomly-generated token field that's good for say 15 minutes, and unless my form submission has that field set to a valid token, then it is rejected? The token would need to be tied to something so that only a request I send creates a valid token for me... otherwise the malicious site can request the form itself, getting a valid token, and use it for the malicious submission.
For that matter, the malicious site could just use some javascript running in my browser to request the form (as me), parse out the token, and then use it for the submission.
Can someone tell me how this token helps? This is the same as those goofy images that banks & other places now make you pick, so that when you come back, they show it to you after you enter your username to let you know they are the real site before you enter your password.... what is to stop someone from making a site where you enter your username, the server submits it to the bank site, grabs the image, and shows it to you?
A lake dries up after an earthquake, a fissure is found in the lake bed, I have a "theory" is that somehow the two are related... Hey boss, can I go on a month long trip into the Chilean mountains to make sure?
From that graph, if the ice volume is now as low as it was at the end of the last few ice ages, shouldn't we think the temperature is the same now as it was during the other spikes? Which measurement is more accurate, ice volume or temperature? Also, are temperature readings for the last ~20,000 yrs more accurate than those from 300,000 yrs ago?
I have a $120 canon MF3110, never had any problems with thick stuff... it won't feed it from the bin, but if you manual feed it and flip down the guide in the back, the paper path is straight.
I also had a HP 5L for well over 10 years (and was ~5 yrs old before I got it), then the pickup rollers started wearing out & it needed new toner, so I sold it... though if that happened sooner it would be worth it to fix it.
I think that a lot of things now have the same problem, they just aren't economical to repair/maintain... a $30K car can be totaled by a minor accident if the right spot gets hit, it costs more to replace the condenser on a fridge than to buy a new fridge, etc... printers are not the only problem.
I'm glad the MediaMVP has competition too... I don't need the wireless and probably never will, but the fancier outputs will come in handy in the future. What about the interface? Can it be customized or do you have to do everything through D-Link's software? One of the best things about the MediaMVP is that it is a VNC client (with some additions to the protocol to stream audio/video), so your PC can display any interface you like, which is why GB-PVR can turn it into a DVR with all the features of a Tivo.
thats what the MediaMVP is for http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_media mvp.html. It is the about 1"x6"x6", ~$50, and is basically a client for a VNC-like protocol. MythTV and GB-PVR both support it. Run a network cable to it, use your existing PC as the server (doesn't use up a whole lot of resources).
Credit cards aren't all bad. I've had a 0% loan for the past 2 1/2 years thanks to credit cards... I get enough 0% offers in the mail that I shouldn't have any trouble keeping it that way until its paid off. Plus you can get 1-2% cash back with a lot of credit cards.
Sure, the processors get ~3% in transaction fees, but a lot of banks also charge ~1-3% when a business deposits cash/checks, plus the cash & checks aren't free, you have to buy checks, and dollar bills don't print themselves. And debit cards are much less safe to use since the money comes straight out of your checking account... one fraudulent charge can easily rack up a few hundred in overdraft fees.
Of course there's the don't feed the trolls argument, and the CC companies of course are trying to entice people into bad situations where they have to pay their ridiculous interest rates & fees, but by my calculations, the CC companies have a net loss of about $200 a year from the business I give them.
Thanks for the info. The association I live in makes a big stink about it and tells people they can't install them ANYWHERE, even though I always try to convince them that's not the case and that if they told people where they could install them, it would avoid all the holes in the roofs. I've currently got comcast's $100/month triple play (for the next 2 yrs), but if I get satellite after that, I thought about just putting the dish pole in a 5 gal bucket of concrete on my patio and running the wire either through a hole in the window trim (which I own and maintain), or through the hole that the cable TV company drilled to install cable, etc.
In my association, we also have an easement written into the deed that lets us install any utility wires, pipes, hvac conduits, etc. through outside walls... maybe this could be used as well.
From my experience, installers are clueless on these issues, they just install the thing, get their commission, and don't care that the dish they put up on somebody's roof will be coming down a week later. It seems like the satellite providers could really help themselves by being more on the ball about this.
The law seems clear that you can put the dish e.g., on your patio, but how did you get them to let you bolt it down and run a wire through the wall? Thats the part I'm not clear about.
So the government of say, China, can tax their people, make whatever is patented in the US, and just hand it out? Thats not going to go over well as a foreign policy, or as a regular policy if the US starts doing it internally.
Vonage is not using the patent for personal use. Vonage is effectively selling the use of Verizon's patented "invention". Hardly anybody has a need for their own instance of the patented things in question. Sure the patent may be obvious/vague and should be thrown out, but a legitimate patent still shouldn't be used if you really want to protect the inventor (again, we need more protection to ensure the inventor doesn't abuse the patent also).
Ok, so lets say as long as you don't sell it, you don't have to license it. Then I will get together 10,000 of my friends, each chip in $25 and pool the resources to copy the invention, then make 10,000 copies of it, one for each of us to personally use. No profit is made, but the inventor gets shafted, especially if I instead had 1,000,000,000 friends.
That's completely changing the subject. I am assuming here that my wheel is an original, non-obvious, and useful invention, and that I am patenting it so that I can sell it with the dual goals of making a profit and benefiting society.
I am arguing that a patent's protection must include the mere use of an invention in order to be any real protection.
Of course a wheel is an obvious invention, but if it wasn't, the things I mentioned in my last post would happen. Of course the patent system right now sucks and is being abused. In order to patent something, a company should have to put up a deposit which will be paid as a reward to anyone the patent office decides has shown prior art or explains why the patent is obvious. The patent should also include the economic value of the patent (which the deposit is a certain % of), and the company MUST license the patent to others for this amount if asked. After a year or two, the amount of total license fees can not exceed the revenue the company itself is receiving from making products that use the invention or the increase in their revenue due to the invention (preventing patent trolls and submarine patents).
What about building a cart to move things around in my own factory? Does that then entitle you a share of all my profits? Yes, if you are using my invention as part of your business then yes you should have to buy the wheel from me or pay a license to make it yourself. My wheel sales would collapse if everyone just made their own, eliminating the incentive for me to research and invent the wheel in the first place. So I would only sell (and show) wheels to people who are willing to sign a non-disclosure, be subjected to surprise inspections, and agree to only use the wheels in private so no one else can see them or pay a huge fine. That way, you won't know about the wheel, and can't copy it yourself, which stifles innovation and prevents people from enjoying its benefits.
I'm no fan of the current patent system, but what the GP is suggesting is not any more "sensible." Lets say I patent the wheel, so you can't SELL wheels without my license. But you're saying you should be able to rent them to people? Or, that you should be able to build a bus using my patented wheels and charge people for you to drive them around? You haven't technically sold anyone my wheel, but nobody is going to buy my wheel because they don't need them because you are using the publicly disclosed wheel description for your own benefit... which eliminates the incentive for me to patent the wheel in the first place.
There are probably other reasons why the patent in question sucks, but this isn't it.
IANAL, but according to Wikipedia, "the patent gives the exclusive right to a patentee to prevent or exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the claimed invention." I think the logic goes that they're not selling the hardware, but they are selling USE of the hardware, i.e. leasing/renting it to the customers on a per-minute basis. I think I've read elsewhere that you basically can't manufacture, distribute, etc. something that is patented, even for your own private use.
Slashdot Mirror
No, my point is the tactics are questionably legitimate and are attempts to game the system. They aren't necessary. A company can either be good in its own right and legitimately get a good rank, or they can buy ads, or some combination. Google is neither forcing nor encouraging anyone to do the stupid things the article talks about. If people want to try to get some free/cheap exposure on the sly then that's fine, but I don't want to hear them whining about it.
Its like the people who are too cheap to rent a regular billboard and who don't have a real store, and nobody knows about them. So, they buy some cheap plastic signs and stick them at random intersections. Fine, I can live with the tactic. But, what if they start complaining about how the wind blows their little signs down, people think their business is less classy because their signs have huge letters in obnoxious colors, too many exclamation points, etc.? Should anyone care?
Right, so you pay for some ads. The current system also lets people play games with their content to a reasonable extent to try to get exposure for free. So who cares if someone is whining because they are too cheap to pay up to keep their pretty layout?
I think there are 3 real options:
1) rank by $$ paid only, you pay more, you are higher, just like the paid ads on the right side of Google. want better rankings? pay up.
2) rank by number of sites that link to you, or some metric that tries to guess how important your site is based on its content. want better rankings? convince people to link to you with little buttons and/or pay some voodoo doctor to please the GoogleBot.
3) The current system. You front the money and get exposure due to ads until your site is important enough that your don't need them anymore, and/or you play the "the link to me, I'm cool" and voodoo games.
I don't understand what the complaint with the current system is and what the proposed solution is.
...and had to design for Google?
Lets see... counter examples... how about searching Google for the word "shipping". What do you know, UPS and Fedex are #1 and #2, and their front pages aren't a mess of useless, Google-pleasing crap. Maybe because they are real businesses and aren't pandering some direct ship junk or get rich quick scheme.
I think the most realistic case for Google getting into this is not as a regular WISP, but as a "Wireless Google Service Provider". That is, free wireless access to Google and related services (and companies who have paid them) via their spectrum, and not general internet access (you can already pay your cell phone company for that, as many have pointed out). Then, Google either generates sufficient hype/pressure/etc. to get cell phone manufacturers to add support for this new spectrum & service (and wifi, etc.) into their phones, or sells unlocked Google-capable cell phones directly that you just put your carrier's SIM card in. Oh, also Google partners with Apple to help Apple escape AT&T's control of the iPhone.
Once there is enough revenue/reason to justify it, other spectrum (or the incumbents themselves) can be bought.
I think NASA has some other vehicles which burn liquid hydrogen, the little bit used for some BMWs is probably not even noticed.
Seriously though, I think the theory is that once cars can burn something environmentally friendly like hydrogen (burning it is clean), and the infrastructure to make/transport it is in place, then its almost trivial to later switch between making the hydrogen using coal or whatever vs some better (but currently more expensive) method. Plus, hopefully centralizing the pollution makes it easier to manage. I'm not saying I buy all this, but that seems to be the line of thinking.
Using a good write rest definitely helps a lot... the submitter didn't mention if he tried that, but your wrist's position make a huge difference, as does how often you use keyboard shortcuts vs click on things.
Technically you can't use something that is patented without the patent owner's permission. Although I'm sure it would be much easier to block any new games from being sold than to force people to return their PS3, it doesn't really matter... few people will keep their $600 brick when they can get a refund and buy a competing system plus have cash left over.
I believe 22km is the theoretical limit, so its certainly possible... but most calls on United Flight 93 were on the plane's built-in phones, and not cell phones... until the plane was at around 5,000ft, but they were flying over southeast PA, so maybe there were not many towers or they weren't transmitting with a lot of power...
Ok, but they say adding a token fixes the problem? So, website X shows me a form with some randomly-generated token field that's good for say 15 minutes, and unless my form submission has that field set to a valid token, then it is rejected? The token would need to be tied to something so that only a request I send creates a valid token for me... otherwise the malicious site can request the form itself, getting a valid token, and use it for the malicious submission.
For that matter, the malicious site could just use some javascript running in my browser to request the form (as me), parse out the token, and then use it for the submission.
Can someone tell me how this token helps? This is the same as those goofy images that banks & other places now make you pick, so that when you come back, they show it to you after you enter your username to let you know they are the real site before you enter your password.... what is to stop someone from making a site where you enter your username, the server submits it to the bank site, grabs the image, and shows it to you?
This is not news.
From that graph, if the ice volume is now as low as it was at the end of the last few ice ages, shouldn't we think the temperature is the same now as it was during the other spikes? Which measurement is more accurate, ice volume or temperature? Also, are temperature readings for the last ~20,000 yrs more accurate than those from 300,000 yrs ago?
I have a $120 canon MF3110, never had any problems with thick stuff... it won't feed it from the bin, but if you manual feed it and flip down the guide in the back, the paper path is straight.
I also had a HP 5L for well over 10 years (and was ~5 yrs old before I got it), then the pickup rollers started wearing out & it needed new toner, so I sold it... though if that happened sooner it would be worth it to fix it.
I think that a lot of things now have the same problem, they just aren't economical to repair/maintain... a $30K car can be totaled by a minor accident if the right spot gets hit, it costs more to replace the condenser on a fridge than to buy a new fridge, etc... printers are not the only problem.
I'm glad the MediaMVP has competition too... I don't need the wireless and probably never will, but the fancier outputs will come in handy in the future. What about the interface? Can it be customized or do you have to do everything through D-Link's software? One of the best things about the MediaMVP is that it is a VNC client (with some additions to the protocol to stream audio/video), so your PC can display any interface you like, which is why GB-PVR can turn it into a DVR with all the features of a Tivo.
thats what the MediaMVP is for http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_media mvp.html. It is the about 1"x6"x6", ~$50, and is basically a client for a VNC-like protocol. MythTV and GB-PVR both support it. Run a network cable to it, use your existing PC as the server (doesn't use up a whole lot of resources).
Credit cards aren't all bad. I've had a 0% loan for the past 2 1/2 years thanks to credit cards... I get enough 0% offers in the mail that I shouldn't have any trouble keeping it that way until its paid off. Plus you can get 1-2% cash back with a lot of credit cards.
Sure, the processors get ~3% in transaction fees, but a lot of banks also charge ~1-3% when a business deposits cash/checks, plus the cash & checks aren't free, you have to buy checks, and dollar bills don't print themselves. And debit cards are much less safe to use since the money comes straight out of your checking account... one fraudulent charge can easily rack up a few hundred in overdraft fees.
Of course there's the don't feed the trolls argument, and the CC companies of course are trying to entice people into bad situations where they have to pay their ridiculous interest rates & fees, but by my calculations, the CC companies have a net loss of about $200 a year from the business I give them.
Thanks for the info. The association I live in makes a big stink about it and tells people they can't install them ANYWHERE, even though I always try to convince them that's not the case and that if they told people where they could install them, it would avoid all the holes in the roofs. I've currently got comcast's $100/month triple play (for the next 2 yrs), but if I get satellite after that, I thought about just putting the dish pole in a 5 gal bucket of concrete on my patio and running the wire either through a hole in the window trim (which I own and maintain), or through the hole that the cable TV company drilled to install cable, etc.
In my association, we also have an easement written into the deed that lets us install any utility wires, pipes, hvac conduits, etc. through outside walls... maybe this could be used as well.
From my experience, installers are clueless on these issues, they just install the thing, get their commission, and don't care that the dish they put up on somebody's roof will be coming down a week later. It seems like the satellite providers could really help themselves by being more on the ball about this.
The law seems clear that you can put the dish e.g., on your patio, but how did you get them to let you bolt it down and run a wire through the wall? Thats the part I'm not clear about.
So the government of say, China, can tax their people, make whatever is patented in the US, and just hand it out? Thats not going to go over well as a foreign policy, or as a regular policy if the US starts doing it internally.
Vonage is not using the patent for personal use. Vonage is effectively selling the use of Verizon's patented "invention". Hardly anybody has a need for their own instance of the patented things in question. Sure the patent may be obvious/vague and should be thrown out, but a legitimate patent still shouldn't be used if you really want to protect the inventor (again, we need more protection to ensure the inventor doesn't abuse the patent also).
Ok, so lets say as long as you don't sell it, you don't have to license it. Then I will get together 10,000 of my friends, each chip in $25 and pool the resources to copy the invention, then make 10,000 copies of it, one for each of us to personally use. No profit is made, but the inventor gets shafted, especially if I instead had 1,000,000,000 friends.
That's completely changing the subject. I am assuming here that my wheel is an original, non-obvious, and useful invention, and that I am patenting it so that I can sell it with the dual goals of making a profit and benefiting society.
I am arguing that a patent's protection must include the mere use of an invention in order to be any real protection.
Of course a wheel is an obvious invention, but if it wasn't, the things I mentioned in my last post would happen. Of course the patent system right now sucks and is being abused.
In order to patent something, a company should have to put up a deposit which will be paid as a reward to anyone the patent office decides has shown prior art or explains why the patent is obvious. The patent should also include the economic value of the patent (which the deposit is a certain % of), and the company MUST license the patent to others for this amount if asked. After a year or two, the amount of total license fees can not exceed the revenue the company itself is receiving from making products that use the invention or the increase in their revenue due to the invention (preventing patent trolls and submarine patents).
I'm no fan of the current patent system, but what the GP is suggesting is not any more "sensible." Lets say I patent the wheel, so you can't SELL wheels without my license. But you're saying you should be able to rent them to people? Or, that you should be able to build a bus using my patented wheels and charge people for you to drive them around? You haven't technically sold anyone my wheel, but nobody is going to buy my wheel because they don't need them because you are using the publicly disclosed wheel description for your own benefit... which eliminates the incentive for me to patent the wheel in the first place.
There are probably other reasons why the patent in question sucks, but this isn't it.
IANAL, but according to Wikipedia, "the patent gives the exclusive right to a patentee to prevent or exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the claimed invention."
I think the logic goes that they're not selling the hardware, but they are selling USE of the hardware, i.e. leasing/renting it to the customers on a per-minute basis. I think I've read elsewhere that you basically can't manufacture, distribute, etc. something that is patented, even for your own private use.