If you own the patent it doesn't restrict *you* from distributing the code. The way GPL2 is written, a megacorp could take an existing GPL2 codebase, modify it to add some code to it that is covered by a patent they *they* own, and then distribute it, and if anyone else then tried to distribute it further, they would be in violation of the GPL, and patent law.
I believe one of the goals of GPL3 was to remove this loophole. (The one allowing a company to add modified code to a GPL project and deny recipients of it of their right to distribute via the patent system).
In many cases, the alternatives to Microsoft are of so little use specifically because of Microsoft's monopoly. For instance, alternate 'word processing' software is useless so long as your business partners expect and demand that you use MS 'Word' format when exchanging information with them.
In other cases, the alternatives to MS are of little use because they try to be 'universally' usable but still only want to release a binary (Think - everything based on java)
In any case the data formats and network protocols are the key. Organizations, countries, and corportations, need to agree on standards for those that are open, non-patented, fully documented without reference to thing else that isnt itself fully open, that there are no barriers to implementation by anyone on any platform, without requiring any specific platform libraries. Hell, I would even go so far as to say that it should almost be required that there be a reference implementation with the source included, free of patents and copyright.
Then, while MS might still maintain its monopoly for some time, as long as their customers are able to demand that their software uses the open documented standard for storing and exchanging information, other organzaitions that need to interact can do so, without also having to be MS customers. Get to that situation, make it stick for long term (5 or 10 years), and eventually, you might just begin to break the monopoly.
You are sort of right. The monopoly power comes from the fact that every piece of 'software' you 'buy' at (OfficeMax, BestBuy, CircuitCity, Acme, Target, JoesComputerPlaceOnTheCorder, etc) assumes "PC = Windows", and assumes everyone has it.
All of that software is unusable if you dont have MSWindows. That runs all the way from MS-Office to the random piece of educational software at the department store.
As far as businesses are concerned, the ability to exchange 'Word' files is a big key. But 'Word' files are proprietarily defined, and what a 'Word' file even is is entirely controlled by MS. Standards used for exchange of information should *not* be proprietary, or under the control of one corporation. MS very much likes the control it has here (and is willing to go to great lengths to protect it - look at the ODF vs OOXML situation)
As far as home/consumer users, its almost a lost cause. The vast majority of 'averge consumers' simple isnt aware of the distinction between the hardware they buy and the software that is always mandatorily packaged with it. They arent even really aware that there might be a choice of OS (reminds me of the scene in The Matrix where Neo is talking to The Architect about their eventual solution to creating the matrix, whereas the participants had to have a choice, but could only be aware of it at a very subconscious level). And they certainly have no graps of any of the concepts that might be important to make that choice, or any tools or ability to obtain that information. Unless someone is a tech geek, they buy a PC from BestBuy or DellDirect, it has whatever version of Windows MS is currently shoving at them. They *might* be dimly aware of Mac, but don't really understand whats different about it. Additionally there are a vast number of tech geeks that *do* have some knowledge, but that either dont really "get it", or for whatever reason are still forward to use Windows.
I am familiar with Canopy, as well as 802.11. Canopy works for what its designed for, which is definately not roaming random access for corportate users out of the office. It is "fixed wireless", as I am sure you are well aware. The CPE has to be fixed in place on a structure, and carefully aimed for best signal. Im not sure what price model you are offering, but I seriously doubt you are less expensive than either cable or DSL (even at their 'regular price' ignoring limited-time discounts), and in fac are probably quite a bit more expensive, and you probably either require up-front payment for the cpe, or require a contract that will pay for it over time. Not that cable or DSL are great, both of them you are supporting a monopoly (and with DSL you are usually locked into a monoploy, *AND* have to pay for a phone line you may or may not need/want).
So if someone is in range of a provider using fixed wireless, and you are willing/able to afford it, and either 1. Neither cable or DSL is available and you want something better than dialup, or 2. You sufficiently hate whichever monopoly cable/telco option is available to you, then fixed wireless is a reasonable option. Oh, and that is assuming the cost of getting the CPE antenna info line-of-sight of the AP is bearable as well. If you are surrounded by forest or tall bulidings that might be formidable.
Fixed wireless *cannot* be used by the average corporate user in a park at his lunch hour, or by police (or anyone else) in a car. fixed wireless hardware is pretty much never preinstalled in laptops, cellphones, or PDAs.
What might be good is a hybrid. Offer fixed wireless to residences and businesses. Subsidize part of their cost by always putting an 802.11 AP with their CPE, and offering on-demand access (for a fee) to anyone that's in range and wants to connect. (Rate limit it so it doesnt eat too much of the capacity of the fixed wireless upstream).
Of course both of these technologies are fairly useless without expensive towers if the terrain isnt hospitable to line-of-sight.
Uhm, no, everything is *not* technically DC. Yes, anything that uses electronic controls or is electronics will have either an internal transformer/rectifier or an external wall-wart, but lots of things use AC directly. Motors in power tools, dishwashers, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, and most power electric appliances (not to mention modern elevators) are AC motors. Incandescent *and* flourescent lighting is a direct AC user (but LED's use DC, of course). Fans (not the PC kind), blowers, electric lawnmowers, even electric heat, all use AC directly.
.. with competition between cable companies for subscribers.
What would really be nice is if cable would be heavily regulated in every location where there are not at least two established players competiting against each other in the *same* market (and phone company vs cable company doesnt count)
Re:I tried the live cd
on
Fedora 8 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You are blaming Fedora for something that isnt their fault.
1. DeVD's - RH is US-based. It would be illegal for them to include DeCSS libraries. You can get them from atrpms. Other US-based distributions arent going to have it either.
2. nvidia - actually nvidia is at fault here, they should either release specs or source for their drivers, so that they can be supported properly by Xorg. (As many other video card chipsets are) And as before, you can still add these yourself, either from atrpms or directly from nvidia.
.. is that someone who hasn't started smoking by 18, is highly unlikely to ever smoke. I seem to remember a study indicitating that 99.9% or something like that of all adult smokers started well before they were 18.
An outright smoking prohibition would never work (just look at alcohol prohibition from back when). And there are perhaps civil/personal rights issues with such a ban, anyway.
But such a ban on minors is acceptable, and no one (not even most adult smokers, since they wouldnt want their kids to smoke) are going to take issue with it.
Basically, because thats what adults (eg, people who can vote) have decided they want.
The more effective the ban is it preventing kids from smoking, as time goes on, the fewer and fewer adult smokers there will be, and eventually (hopefully), there will be enough adult nonsmokers to perhaps take more aggressive action against smoking. The only bad side effect is that it makes smoking appear more desirable to minors, and they look forward to the day they turn 18 so they can smoke. (Ditto with alcohol and age 21)
Personally, my take on the issue is that any adult has the right to inhale the fumes of burning leaves as much as they want, but they should not be permitted to exhale/exhaust them into the air in any public or semi-public space, or in any private space unless they are the owner or the owner has granted them permission. Perhaps an exception could be made for outdoors public spaces where there was no other person within coughing distance (I'd suggest 50 feet), and it was not a place where children might frequent (such as playgrounds or near schools)
(And yes, this has nothing to do with the mechanical turk)
Hear Hear! I've been wanting for this for a long time.
I've been using Gmail for about a year and a half now. Previous to that I was a commited pine user, and couldnt stand anything else, let alone webmail. I still cant stand pretty much any other webmail app, and that includes both the services like Yahoo and hotmail, as well as the various versions available to run on a LAMP system (and that includes the newer, supposedly 'gmail like' ajax ones such as RoundCube. But gmail has me hooked, and I'd be hard pressed to be happy using anything else.
But, my one bug quibble with it, like you, is that my email is not stored somewhere directly under my control. I would love if Gmail was able to access external IMAP accounts (POP is not acceptable - I dont want to _download_ the mail, I want to access it in-place) which I could then create on my own server.
Another possiblity (one that is even less likely, however) would be for Gmail to release a downloadable version (obviously with a slightly smaller featureset, but duplicating the basic functionality of the Gmail UI) that I could run on my server.
You do realize that Gmail's labels are in fact a superset of 'folders', the primary difference being that a message can be 'in' more than one label at a time? Nothing of course requires you to put messages in more than one label, and you can use them just like folders, and pretend that each message can only be 'in' one.
This is by no means an argument against using Gmail for your setup, it is merely a note regarding your 'ISP's (properly) blocking SMTP to servers other than their own'. This is indeed a proper thing, as email clients should not be sending outbound mail directly to receipient SMTP servers - they should be submitting to an SMTP server that serves them (eg which the user has an account on), which then relays the message.
However, port 25 is not the proper port to be doing this on, and is, as you noted, usually blocked. Port 587 (configured properly to only allow authenticated connections to relay messages) is the right port, and is usually not blocked, as it isnt useful for sending spam (Few, if any, mailservers accept inbound messages on port 587, or indeed anything other than port 25).
Between knowing how to use a blog or search for stuff with Google (or creating crap with Microsoft ShitPoint), and knowing how to install, configure, or manage a blog system, a search engine, webserver farm, or a corporate network/server platform.
'Knowing how to use blogs' and how to IM people to find information does not equate to 'up to the minute' technology skills Compare:
Knowing how to use a dishwasher or a microwave oven doesnt qualify you to design and build either of those appliances, let alone even open the cover of one.
Knowing how to turn on the lights or plug in a TV or VCR doesnt qualify you to install electrical wiring in a house or build or repair AV equipment (or even program the clock in a VCR, usually)
Basically, this generation is adept at being users, but (in general) has neither the qualifications or desire to be the sysadmin-behind-the-scenes.
Re:Warning: Gmail IMAP support is ASCII only!!!
on
Free IMAP On Gmail
·
· Score: 1
Go there, select IMAP, and follow through like you are looking for the answer in their FAQ. Then when you get to the 'answer', scroll all the way to the bottom for a 'contact us' link that will take you to a contact form.
Yeah, but the only real 'marketplace competitor' to MS is Free Software. If it isnt available to them, the if thats what the case was meant to do, it failed.
If anyone sympathetic to meaingful choice, real competition, and Free Software is able to get their hands on whatever documentation is provided, I can guarantee you they will end up on the web somewhere, _regardless_ of the terms that come with them. Think back to DeCSS.
MS isnt releasing their code. Just (ostensibly) protocol documentation that should have been open and public to begin with. And the *only* serious competitive threat to MS *IS* Free Software. Which means this 'settlement' effectively keeps MS monopoly firmly in place. Any corporations which begin to be a threat will be squashed with MS' massive warchest. So there is still no 'level playing field' - the huge barrier to entry is still there, and the 10,000 foot cliff with huge point spikepit at the bottom a few dozen yards past that for those that actually are able to enter is still there.
No, the point is that the fonts shouldnt be set by the webpage, they should be set by the user. If the user doesnt like the look of the default fonts set by their OS/browser setup, they can choose them.
Yes, A 'PeeCee' is a 'PeeCee' no matter who makes the hardware. That same hardware can run Windows or Linux. They are many makers of hardware, but only one maker of 'Microsoft Windows'. Proprietary data formats, as well as open ones, can be accessed equially using pretty much any hardware, but the proprietary ones require software that is specific to your operating system.
When one goes with a proprietary data format, then you need special proprietary software and if you go with DRM it has to be closed source, so you provide it as binary only. Of course compiled binary software will only run on the specific platform its compiled for, so you have to compile support for each platform that you want to allow to access your data. You can either support a monopoly and only provide the software for one platform, or you have to develope and compile multiple versions. This costs time and money, both to put your data in that format, and the development of various software to play it. And in the end someone will break the DRM anyway, allowing your data to be converted to open standards-based formats. (where it may well be copied and shared in ways you dont want it to be)
On the other hand, if you go with an open standards-based format, there is already an abundance of software which can access and play it, and you have far less expense. You dont need to make special players, and your data is accessible by default to just about everyone. (But of course, it might be copied and shared in ways you dont want it to be)
So, two ways to arrive at the same end. One painful and expensive way, that supports an oppressive monopoly and makes you look foolish and antagonistic to 'smart' people, and the other that costs far less time and money and makes you look like you know what you are doing. BBC apparently chose the former.
Quite frankly, I dont *want* to find sites run by people who want to 'make a quick dollar or two'.
If I search for some information, I want to find a site upon which that information is displayed, not a site that will offer to sell it to me. The primary purpose of the Internet isnt so that people can 'make money off it', and people that think that is the ultimate goal arent people I want to find.
Google servers its users (eg, the people that search for things) by helping them find what they WANT to find, not by helping people who want to 'make a quick dollar' be found by people.
In fact, I would love to be able to have Google be able to detect when someone is trying to SEO their site, and let me (as a user searching) automatically filter such sites out of results. I'm not so naive as to think that can ever be done reliably, but I can dream.
Slashdot Mirror
If you own the patent it doesn't restrict *you* from distributing the code. The way GPL2 is written, a megacorp could take an existing GPL2 codebase, modify it to add some code to it that is covered by a patent they *they* own, and then distribute it, and if anyone else then tried to distribute it further, they would be in violation of the GPL, and patent law.
I believe one of the goals of GPL3 was to remove this loophole. (The one allowing a company to add modified code to a GPL project and deny recipients of it of their right to distribute via the patent system).
So given that Apple is surely not giving anything away for free, and MS actually owns part of Apple, which of those two ways is Apple trying?
In many cases, the alternatives to Microsoft are of so little use specifically because of Microsoft's monopoly. For instance, alternate 'word processing' software is useless so long as your business partners expect and demand that you use MS 'Word' format when exchanging information with them.
In other cases, the alternatives to MS are of little use because they try to be 'universally' usable but still only want to release a binary (Think - everything based on java)
In any case the data formats and network protocols are the key. Organizations, countries, and corportations, need to agree on standards for those that are open, non-patented, fully documented without reference to thing else that isnt itself fully open, that there are no barriers to implementation by anyone on any platform, without requiring any specific platform libraries. Hell, I would even go so far as to say that it should almost be required that there be a reference implementation with the source included, free of patents and copyright.
Then, while MS might still maintain its monopoly for some time, as long as their customers are able to demand that their software uses the open documented standard for storing and exchanging information, other organzaitions that need to interact can do so, without also having to be MS customers. Get to that situation, make it stick for long term (5 or 10 years), and eventually, you might just begin to break the monopoly.
You are sort of right. The monopoly power comes from the fact that every piece of 'software' you 'buy' at (OfficeMax, BestBuy, CircuitCity, Acme, Target, JoesComputerPlaceOnTheCorder, etc) assumes "PC = Windows", and assumes everyone has it.
All of that software is unusable if you dont have MSWindows. That runs all the way from MS-Office to the random piece of educational software at the department store.
As far as businesses are concerned, the ability to exchange 'Word' files is a big key. But 'Word' files are proprietarily defined, and what a 'Word' file even is is entirely controlled by MS. Standards used for exchange of information should *not* be proprietary, or under the control of one corporation. MS very much likes the control it has here (and is willing to go to great lengths to protect it - look at the ODF vs OOXML situation)
As far as home/consumer users, its almost a lost cause. The vast majority of 'averge consumers' simple isnt aware of the distinction between the hardware they buy and the software that is always mandatorily packaged with it. They arent even really aware that there might be a choice of OS (reminds me of the scene in The Matrix where Neo is talking to The Architect about their eventual solution to creating the matrix, whereas the participants had to have a choice, but could only be aware of it at a very subconscious level). And they certainly have no graps of any of the concepts that might be important to make that choice, or any tools or ability to obtain that information. Unless someone is a tech geek, they buy a PC from BestBuy or DellDirect, it has whatever version of Windows MS is currently shoving at them. They *might* be dimly aware of Mac, but don't really understand whats different about it. Additionally there are a vast number of tech geeks that *do* have some knowledge, but that either dont really "get it", or for whatever reason are still forward to use Windows.
I am familiar with Canopy, as well as 802.11. Canopy works for what its designed for, which is definately not roaming random access for corportate users out of the office. It is "fixed wireless", as I am sure you are well aware. The CPE has to be fixed in place on a structure, and carefully aimed for best signal. Im not sure what price model you are offering, but I seriously doubt you are less expensive than either cable or DSL (even at their 'regular price' ignoring limited-time discounts), and in fac are probably quite a bit more expensive, and you probably either require up-front payment for the cpe, or require a contract that will pay for it over time. Not that cable or DSL are great, both of them you are supporting a monopoly (and with DSL you are usually locked into a monoploy, *AND* have to pay for a phone line you may or may not need/want).
So if someone is in range of a provider using fixed wireless, and you are willing/able to afford it, and either 1. Neither cable or DSL is available and you want something better than dialup, or 2. You sufficiently hate whichever monopoly cable/telco option is available to you, then fixed wireless is a reasonable option. Oh, and that is assuming the cost of getting the CPE antenna info line-of-sight of the AP is bearable as well. If you are surrounded by forest or tall bulidings that might be formidable.
Fixed wireless *cannot* be used by the average corporate user in a park at his lunch hour, or by police (or anyone else) in a car. fixed wireless hardware is pretty much never preinstalled in laptops, cellphones, or PDAs.
What might be good is a hybrid. Offer fixed wireless to residences and businesses. Subsidize part of their cost by always putting an 802.11 AP with their CPE, and offering on-demand access (for a fee) to anyone that's in range and wants to connect. (Rate limit it so it doesnt eat too much of the capacity of the fixed wireless upstream).
Of course both of these technologies are fairly useless without expensive towers if the terrain isnt hospitable to line-of-sight.
Uhm, no, everything is *not* technically DC. Yes, anything that uses electronic controls or is electronics will have either an internal transformer/rectifier or an external wall-wart, but lots of things use AC directly. Motors in power tools, dishwashers, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, and most power electric appliances (not to mention modern elevators) are AC motors. Incandescent *and* flourescent lighting is a direct AC user (but LED's use DC, of course). Fans (not the PC kind), blowers, electric lawnmowers, even electric heat, all use AC directly.
What would really be nice is if cable would be heavily regulated in every location where there are not at least two established players competiting against each other in the *same* market (and phone company vs cable company doesnt count)
You are blaming Fedora for something that isnt their fault.
1. DeVD's - RH is US-based. It would be illegal for them to include DeCSS libraries. You can get them from atrpms. Other US-based distributions arent going to have it either.
2. nvidia - actually nvidia is at fault here, they should either release specs or source for their drivers, so that they can be supported properly by Xorg. (As many other video card chipsets are) And as before, you can still add these yourself, either from atrpms or directly from nvidia.
Its not copyright itself that is evil, it is certain uses that it is put to by big megacorps.
And I wouldnt care to have service from them anyway. Oh, and point of fact, "Nextel and Sprint" are the same company now.
.. is that someone who hasn't started smoking by 18, is highly unlikely to ever smoke. I seem to remember a study indicitating that 99.9% or something like that of all adult smokers started well before they were 18.
An outright smoking prohibition would never work (just look at alcohol prohibition from back when). And there are perhaps civil/personal rights issues with such a ban, anyway.
But such a ban on minors is acceptable, and no one (not even most adult smokers, since they wouldnt want their kids to smoke) are going to take issue with it.
Basically, because thats what adults (eg, people who can vote) have decided they want.
The more effective the ban is it preventing kids from smoking, as time goes on, the fewer and fewer adult smokers there will be, and eventually (hopefully), there will be enough adult nonsmokers to perhaps take more aggressive action against smoking. The only bad side effect is that it makes smoking appear more desirable to minors, and they look forward to the day they turn 18 so they can smoke. (Ditto with alcohol and age 21)
Personally, my take on the issue is that any adult has the right to inhale the fumes of burning leaves as much as they want, but they should not be permitted to exhale/exhaust them into the air in any public or semi-public space, or in any private space unless they are the owner or the owner has granted them permission. Perhaps an exception could be made for outdoors public spaces where there was no other person within coughing distance (I'd suggest 50 feet), and it was not a place where children might frequent (such as playgrounds or near schools)
(And yes, this has nothing to do with the mechanical turk)
Really? Will the universe implode if they don't?
Hear Hear! I've been wanting for this for a long time.
I've been using Gmail for about a year and a half now. Previous to that I was a commited pine user, and couldnt stand anything else, let alone webmail. I still cant stand pretty much any other webmail app, and that includes both the services like Yahoo and hotmail, as well as the various versions available to run on a LAMP system (and that includes the newer, supposedly 'gmail like' ajax ones such as RoundCube. But gmail has me hooked, and I'd be hard pressed to be happy using anything else.
But, my one bug quibble with it, like you, is that my email is not stored somewhere directly under my control. I would love if Gmail was able to access external IMAP accounts (POP is not acceptable - I dont want to _download_ the mail, I want to access it in-place) which I could then create on my own server.
Another possiblity (one that is even less likely, however) would be for Gmail to release a downloadable version (obviously with a slightly smaller featureset, but duplicating the basic functionality of the Gmail UI) that I could run on my server.
You do realize that Gmail's labels are in fact a superset of 'folders', the primary difference being that a message can be 'in' more than one label at a time? Nothing of course requires you to put messages in more than one label, and you can use them just like folders, and pretend that each message can only be 'in' one.
This is by no means an argument against using Gmail for your setup, it is merely a note regarding your 'ISP's (properly) blocking SMTP to servers other than their own'. This is indeed a proper thing, as email clients should not be sending outbound mail directly to receipient SMTP servers - they should be submitting to an SMTP server that serves them (eg which the user has an account on), which then relays the message.
However, port 25 is not the proper port to be doing this on, and is, as you noted, usually blocked. Port 587 (configured properly to only allow authenticated connections to relay messages) is the right port, and is usually not blocked, as it isnt useful for sending spam (Few, if any, mailservers accept inbound messages on port 587, or indeed anything other than port 25).
See http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2476.txt
MSIE *AND* so-called "AntiVirus" products *are* malware themselves. Obviously the 'it takes one to know one' argument just lost some validity.
CD's *ARE* "digital". If you are measuring "Digital Music Sales" then sales of CD's count.
"Digital" is not equivalent to "Online"
Between knowing how to use a blog or search for stuff with Google (or creating crap with Microsoft ShitPoint), and knowing how to install, configure, or manage a blog system, a search engine, webserver farm, or a corporate network/server platform.
'Knowing how to use blogs' and how to IM people to find information does not equate to 'up to the minute' technology skills
Compare:
Knowing how to use a dishwasher or a microwave oven doesnt qualify you to design and build either of those appliances, let alone even open the cover of one.
Knowing how to turn on the lights or plug in a TV or VCR doesnt qualify you to install electrical wiring in a house or build or repair AV equipment (or even program the clock in a VCR, usually)
Basically, this generation is adept at being users, but (in general) has neither the qualifications or desire to be the sysadmin-behind-the-scenes.
Go there, select IMAP, and follow through like you are looking for the answer in their FAQ. Then when you get to the 'answer', scroll all the way to the bottom for a 'contact us' link that will take you to a contact form.
Yeah, but the only real 'marketplace competitor' to MS is Free Software. If it isnt available to them, the if thats what the case was meant to do, it failed.
If anyone sympathetic to meaingful choice, real competition, and Free Software is able to get their hands on whatever documentation is provided, I can guarantee you they will end up on the web somewhere, _regardless_ of the terms that come with them. Think back to DeCSS.
MS isnt releasing their code. Just (ostensibly) protocol documentation that should have been open and public to begin with. And the *only* serious competitive threat to MS *IS* Free Software. Which means this 'settlement' effectively keeps MS monopoly firmly in place. Any corporations which begin to be a threat will be squashed with MS' massive warchest. So there is still no 'level playing field' - the huge barrier to entry is still there, and the 10,000 foot cliff with huge point spikepit at the bottom a few dozen yards past that for those that actually are able to enter is still there.
No, the point is that the fonts shouldnt be set by the webpage, they should be set by the user. If the user doesnt like the look of the default fonts set by their OS/browser setup, they can choose them.
Yes, A 'PeeCee' is a 'PeeCee' no matter who makes the hardware. That same hardware can run Windows or Linux. They are many makers of hardware, but only one maker of 'Microsoft Windows'. Proprietary data formats, as well as open ones, can be accessed equially using pretty much any hardware, but the proprietary ones require software that is specific to your operating system.
When one goes with a proprietary data format, then you need special proprietary software and if you go with DRM it has to be closed source, so you provide it as binary only. Of course compiled binary software will only run on the specific platform its compiled for, so you have to compile support for each platform that you want to allow to access your data. You can either support a monopoly and only provide the software for one platform, or you have to develope and compile multiple versions. This costs time and money, both to put your data in that format, and the development of various software to play it. And in the end someone will break the DRM anyway, allowing your data to be converted to open standards-based formats. (where it may well be copied and shared in ways you dont want it to be)
On the other hand, if you go with an open standards-based format, there is already an abundance of software which can access and play it, and you have far less expense. You dont need to make special players, and your data is accessible by default to just about everyone. (But of course, it might be copied and shared in ways you dont want it to be)
So, two ways to arrive at the same end. One painful and expensive way, that supports an oppressive monopoly and makes you look foolish and antagonistic to 'smart' people, and the other that costs far less time and money and makes you look like you know what you are doing. BBC apparently chose the former.
Quite frankly, I dont *want* to find sites run by people who want to 'make a quick dollar or two'.
If I search for some information, I want to find a site upon which that information is displayed, not a site that will offer to sell it to me. The primary purpose of the Internet isnt so that people can 'make money off it', and people that think that is the ultimate goal arent people I want to find.
Google servers its users (eg, the people that search for things) by helping them find what they WANT to find, not by helping people who want to 'make a quick dollar' be found by people.
In fact, I would love to be able to have Google be able to detect when someone is trying to SEO their site, and let me (as a user searching) automatically filter such sites out of results. I'm not so naive as to think that can ever be done reliably, but I can dream.