The fact of the matter is, to advertise on Google, you have to specifically:
a) choose one or more keywords you want to show up on b) create the title for your ad c) create the body for your ad d) remember that in addition, if you are using another company's name in your link, you must write 'affiliate'. This of course assumes that you are actually allowed to use their name and to represent them on the website that is being linked. Thus, Google admits (with this requirement) that people have and do abuse trademark law.
The advertisements that were put up: a) have AXA in the title/body of their ads b) possibly even paid for the keyword "AXA"
Those two things are not automatically bad in themselves, even if the creators of those ads are not affiliates, but then c:
c) the ads tell you nothing about anything except that they are 'AXA' and 'insurance.'
The correct analogy is that a competitor, angry customer, etc. whoever, buys a phonebook ad in the same keyword (category) as a company, say "Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs!" Let's see, they make the ad appear in the same category ("restaurant"), and what does the ad say?
Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs (title) Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs, Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs, Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs (body) CALL 823-233-2901 (instead of the url obviously, since it's a phone book.)
THIS IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM THAT THE TRADEMARKS ARE SUPPOSED TO FIGHT AGAINST!
A correct Google ad would be: a) keyword is AXA? fine b) AXA in the title? fine c) AXA in the body? fine
but the body and text should say that they are competitors to AXA, instead of just "AXA".
d) "Why buy from AXA?" title "We were ranked above them in 3 of 4 major ranking sites. click here." body http://www.insurance.com
You can't just plaster a competitor's trademark on a bulletin board without any context. When people see a trademark they assume the company behind the trademark is who they see. They are allowed to think so because of strong trademark laws!
In this case, consumers become EVEN MORE CONFUSED because the "Sponsored Ads" text imply that SOMEBODY PAID FOR THE ADS and THESE ADS ARE NOT PART OF THE SEARCH RESULTS BUT ARE ADS, thus making them feel confident of clicking on an AD because ADS = you know the company is responsible for them, right?
In fact, customers searching for AXA would trust the Google Ads (Because they are implied to be approved and the trademarks' of their owners) than the TOP LINK OF THE SEARCH RESULTS because everybody knows they can't trust information regular web sites, but we can trust google!
The solution is to remove those ads. It's true. Especially since it seems that another post said that AXA company itself did not appear in search results on the first page at all, thus of course making customers put more trust in the SPONSORED ADS because heck, search results are just search results and axa did not even show up, but ADS are run by the companies right? So the whole first page had nothing about the actual AXA company from what I understand, until now. But even now, AXA should continue with the suit so that ads, which are thought of us definitive representations of a company, stop being so misleading to the point that it says McDonalds on the ads and links to manybillionsserved.com but is actual the burger king's home page. COME ON!
Only a non-educated boss like you would base his whole opinion on all college graduates based on one negative experience.
College isn't just about a degree, it is about overcoming challenges. You could take a full load every semester, for 40 years, and withdraw from every course. You would still be more open minded and enlightened, even if you learned nothing, than stopping education at 18.
But the quickest solution to ridding.doc documents is not to switch software tools, operating systems, and retrain users. Why not just rename.doc to.renamethisbacktodotdoc before sending it out, thus saving humanity from the hell that is anything microsoft hasn't touched yet?
Look at you, you found a slashdot duplicate. And you wonder why you don't have any moderation points?
Had, instead, your discovery was something like, "This slashdot article is NOT a duplicate of a previous story down the page" about a/. story, well then that would deserve some modded-up attention-grabbing heads-up for the rest of us;)
That is the most indigenous statement I've ever heard. So indigenous that it isn't even the right grammatical word for it. Ingenious just doesn't cover it. That is the greatest advice somebody can give, and it is very straightforward as well. That guy is a true genius. He gave advice that will be ignored by almost everybody, but it is the advice to success. It's called get shit done. Instead of, "what should I do?" It's called get shit done. Once again, instead of "what should I do?", it's called "get shit done." GET SOME FUCKING THING DONE. Once again. It's not sitting in a pile of shit wondering what you should do that shows intelligence. It's taking the whatever random thing that attracted you at the time, and getting whatever you wanted to do... TO COMPLETION. That shows intelligence and skill and aptitude and brings such high satisfaction that you are ready to tackle on another challenge leaving you no time to wonder what you could be doing, since you're too busy DOING IT.
Don't be offended, anybody intelligent will see that is not meant to be beratory, but inspirational.
And you definitely write with it: The side effect of this principled and deliberate self architecture/rearchitecture is to live in a state of wonder and potentially of joy.
Good job. NLP is making people feel happy and excited to the way words sound that actually are not gramatically sensical in a way to cause the brain to do a brain fart in which the next sentence the person sees will be read during the brainfart and influence the person the way they otherwise wouldn't have cared for.
Information #1: Right handers don't push the pencil like left-handers do. Right handers pull the pencil to the right as they draw, gently guiding the dragging. Left-handers actually push the pencil forward brute force. Thus, the results are completely different, and efforts (like the strokes) that might be awesomely convenient for a righty end up always being non-neutral, thus hurting the left-handers at the same time. #2: Hey, tell me this watashi.. Do you 'hook' when you write left-handed? Is your wrist at about 45 degrees in the third quadrant like normal or is it turned inwards as much as possible, 'hooked'? Both right handers and left handers hook. Basically, according to a study that measured brain activity along with whether or not the people hooked, it turns out that non-hookers (normal people) of both handedness had the side of the brains light up that was opposite of their hands, which is a fact we all know about.
But for hookers, left-handers who hooked had their left-handed side activated and right-handers the right side. The hooking action seems to show that the hand is resisting what it's doing, and that if you hook lefty you're NOT an actual lefty, you're a righty. The right handed hookers are actually LEFTY. by lefty and right I mean that the way they were born, which side of their brain has the motor skills for writing. It's always the opposite unless you hook, the study found (Except in one case, which might have been ambidextrous, I don't remember.)
Half of the left-handers I've seen are hookers. Meaning, they are left-handers because their parents thought it was fashionable or cute instead of because their brain wants it. Please don't quote the first sentence in this paragraph out of context.
The funny thing was that when the last episode of the mole 2 was shown, they told us about all the secret stuff in the show. Turns out that what I caught was in episode 16, but it had also been done in episode 13, which I didn't see... and nobody caught it ever. But of course, once I announced it when it came up in episode 16 after watching the title screen in slow motion, all of a sudden it became common knowledge when people woke up in the morning and read my statements.
I saw a digitized graphic inside an ABC show (The Mole 2) that directly stated who the Mole was. I did this upon reviewing the beginning of the show, which I taped, right after it ended. I posted this on abc.com message boards for the show, and nobody, not even the regulars even believed me. Then, 12 hours later, people started to post stuff about it, many of whom were the non-believers and obviously didn't find it themselves. And nobody could say "you were the one who found it" even though nobody else did. People submitted my fact to different fan sites of that show without giving credit to me.
Basically, human nature is such that you must remember this lesson. The more people there are who know about something, the higher the chance somebody will take complete credit for it or say "they don't know who it was". So, though little things like that aren't important about getting credit for, it still wouldn't hurt if people STOPPED BEING FUCKING HUMANS and stopped misleading others by stating something without stating the author, thus purposely misleading the audience into thinking they thought of it. There are many people like this, so if you are going to find something out yourself, make sure to contact the press and web sites at the same time. Don't just announce it to one web site.
I forgot to mention this tidbit that came to my head:
When the video then ended, and the credits showed Copyright 2001, it hit me that this is how the terrorists might have got the idea for 9/11. And what happened? Terrorists sent the first two planes into the WTC. They got the idea about the crashing planes in the first place from that video. And did it to the WTC just because the video said it couldn't be done. Plus, they had tried the WTC in 1993. And just in case the engineer was right, they wanted to send a plane to DC also.
Don't make the mistake of comparing with the WTC; those buildings were mostly open space and were not designed to take any kind of impact.
I saw a show with my family on building the WTC a few months after 9/11. That video was Copyrighted in 2000 or early 2001. It was shot BEFORE 9/11, and it was shown on the history channel or TLC because I guess they had a video of that lying around. It showed how the WTC looked on a blueprint with its columns, people falling off during construction, and talked about and showed video of the elevators inside WTC and how they were designed to only go like 10 levels at a time and then you switch elevators, that's because it would be a waste for 1 elevator to go from floor 1 to the top or something I don't remember. But the whole video was like, this is an engineering marvel.
Engineers and one of the top engineers of the WTC was interviewed throughout the program. In the closing minutes, one guy says something along the lines of it was build so that even if a jet crashed into it, it would withstand the impact.
So yes, it was designed to be that strong. And yes, it failed on what it was assumed it could do. So your comment doesn't apply.
If you only use 30 minutes a month, the best way to go is this. Buy a tracfone.com phone for 70-90$ during the holidays when it includes a thing to extend your deadline a full year for free. You also get 30 mins with it. Then buy a card for $80 for 350 minutes, which are going to be streched out to a full year. (The original purchase also gave me a free 20 minutes every time I buy another card for the next 12 times). Then buy a a yearly extention card for $99 that adds alike another 200 minutes (plus 20 from the bonus) and extends your deadline another year. And, any minutes you don't use remain on your phone! Forever!
I was able to teach myself programming languages when I was 14. Actually, a lot of CS freshman already know some programming languages. So my question to him is...
What the hell do you think CS majors do for four years? When you use my logic, you see that there is a whole lot of space for learning. Outside of that "knowing the programming language" stuff that you and pre-CS people know already, like IF FOR WHILE FUNCTIONS CLASSES and RECURSION, there is clearly four years for students to learn stuff beyond that they already know, so what it could be? What could CS majors be learning? How to say Hello World? Doing more of same? No. No. Just like if I take Thermodynamics and Physics 3 and all of a sudden I understand the intricancies of your major. Nope.
Just because you sat inside a classroom for four years then work in engineering doesn't mean shit that you're actually worth more than a guy working in computer science out of high school. The point is that you are no better than someone doing computer science (notice I said doing) in real life. Sure we can all learn "computer science" in one of 3,000 colleges, and we can learn a programming language from DeVry, and work in IT, but that doesn't mean we are *doing* Computer Science.
Those people actually using the stuff learned in computer science as part of their job definitely do compare to engineers. But then again, even engineers don't do complex stuff all the time, usually it's repetitive from their previous projects. So, what is so bad about not going to college and being a wiz kid in CS? If there was a license in CS and you could pass it without college, so what? But there isn't a license, and most of the time, you don't use CS, just programming. In that case, you can buy a Programming programming book. OMG I've seen some of them... Or a Computer Science programming book, that would be better. But learning CS (as in advanced computer science stuff), few do that just like few can get through engineering by taking thermo and other subjects by themselves--its just easier to go to college.
When people say "hate" they don't mean they detest something, they just imply that "omg look what our world turned into" but they can see the important uses of it. Clearly, understanding social skills is above your head. (no, don't look up, "above your head" is another figurative speech term in society.)
Slashdot Mirror
OMG that auction just went from 10 million to 17 million during the 10 mins I spent reading it.
that just do not work.
The fact of the matter is, to advertise on Google, you have to specifically:
a) choose one or more keywords you want to show up on
b) create the title for your ad
c) create the body for your ad
d) remember that in addition, if you are using another company's name in your link, you must write 'affiliate'. This of course assumes that you are actually allowed to use their name and to represent them on the website that is being linked. Thus, Google admits (with this requirement) that people have and do abuse trademark law.
The advertisements that were put up:
a) have AXA in the title/body of their ads
b) possibly even paid for the keyword "AXA"
Those two things are not automatically bad in themselves, even if the creators of those ads are not affiliates, but then c:
c) the ads tell you nothing about anything except that they are 'AXA' and 'insurance.'
The correct analogy is that a competitor, angry customer, etc. whoever, buys a phonebook ad in the same keyword (category) as a company, say "Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs!" Let's see, they make the ad appear in the same category ("restaurant"), and what does the ad say?
Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs (title)
Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs, Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs, Pete's World Famous Barbeque Ribs (body)
CALL 823-233-2901 (instead of the url obviously, since it's a phone book.)
THIS IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM THAT THE TRADEMARKS ARE SUPPOSED TO FIGHT AGAINST!
A correct Google ad would be:
a) keyword is AXA? fine
b) AXA in the title? fine
c) AXA in the body? fine
but the body and text should say that they are competitors to AXA, instead of just "AXA".
d) "Why buy from AXA?" title
"We were ranked above them in 3 of
4 major ranking sites. click here." body
http://www.insurance.com
You can't just plaster a competitor's trademark on a bulletin board without any context. When people see a trademark they assume the company behind the trademark is who they see. They are allowed to think so because of strong trademark laws!
In this case, consumers become EVEN MORE CONFUSED because the "Sponsored Ads" text imply that SOMEBODY PAID FOR THE ADS and THESE ADS ARE NOT PART OF THE SEARCH RESULTS BUT ARE ADS, thus making them feel confident of clicking on an AD because ADS = you know the company is responsible for them, right?
In fact, customers searching for AXA would trust the Google Ads (Because they are implied to be approved and the trademarks' of their owners) than the TOP LINK OF THE SEARCH RESULTS because everybody knows they can't trust information regular web sites, but we can trust google!
The solution is to remove those ads. It's true. Especially since it seems that another post said that AXA company itself did not appear in search results on the first page at all, thus of course making customers put more trust in the SPONSORED ADS because heck, search results are just search results and axa did not even show up, but ADS are run by the companies right? So the whole first page had nothing about the actual AXA company from what I understand, until now. But even now, AXA should continue with the suit so that ads, which are thought of us definitive representations of a company, stop being so misleading to the point that it says McDonalds on the ads and links to manybillionsserved.com but is actual the burger king's home page. COME ON!
They didn't give a date.
Only a non-educated boss like you would base his whole opinion on all college graduates based on one negative experience.
College isn't just about a degree, it is about overcoming challenges. You could take a full load every semester, for 40 years, and withdraw from every course. You would still be more open minded and enlightened, even if you learned nothing, than stopping education at 18.
But the quickest solution to ridding .doc documents is not to switch software tools, operating systems, and retrain users. Why not just rename .doc to .renamethisbacktodotdoc before sending it out, thus saving humanity from the hell that is anything microsoft hasn't touched yet?
This is slashdot.
/. story, well then that would deserve some modded-up attention-grabbing heads-up for the rest of us ;)
Look at you, you found a slashdot duplicate. And you wonder why you don't have any moderation points?
Had, instead, your discovery was something like, "This slashdot article is NOT a duplicate of a previous story down the page" about a
...Unless, you add the word "square" in front of the word "wheel", thus obviously implying a square shape instead of a circular one.
Bose noise cancelling headphones suck, they aren't even the best active noise cancelling headphones available.
:O
If not being #1 at every thing means you suck, then you must live a very depressed life.
I do agree with some of the stuff you have to say, but I have no idea what your point is?
It's much easier to mod me down than to post an intelligent reply.
Yes, yes it was. Or did I just do both just now?
That is the most indigenous statement I've ever heard. So indigenous that it isn't even the right grammatical word for it. Ingenious just doesn't cover it. That is the greatest advice somebody can give, and it is very straightforward as well. That guy is a true genius. He gave advice that will be ignored by almost everybody, but it is the advice to success. It's called get shit done. Instead of, "what should I do?" It's called get shit done. Once again, instead of "what should I do?", it's called "get shit done." GET SOME FUCKING THING DONE. Once again. It's not sitting in a pile of shit wondering what you should do that shows intelligence. It's taking the whatever random thing that attracted you at the time, and getting whatever you wanted to do... TO COMPLETION. That shows intelligence and skill and aptitude and brings such high satisfaction that you are ready to tackle on another challenge leaving you no time to wonder what you could be doing, since you're too busy DOING IT.
Don't be offended, anybody intelligent will see that is not meant to be beratory, but inspirational.
And you definitely write with it:
The side effect of this principled and deliberate self architecture/rearchitecture is to live in a state of wonder and potentially of joy.
Good job. NLP is making people feel happy and excited to the way words sound that actually are not gramatically sensical in a way to cause the brain to do a brain fart in which the next sentence the person sees will be read during the brainfart and influence the person the way they otherwise wouldn't have cared for.
Information #1:
Right handers don't push the pencil like left-handers do. Right handers pull the pencil to the right as they draw, gently guiding the dragging. Left-handers actually push the pencil forward brute force. Thus, the results are completely different, and efforts (like the strokes) that might be awesomely convenient for a righty end up always being non-neutral, thus hurting the left-handers at the same time.
#2:
Hey, tell me this watashi.. Do you 'hook' when you write left-handed? Is your wrist at about 45 degrees in the third quadrant like normal or is it turned inwards as much as possible, 'hooked'? Both right handers and left handers hook. Basically, according to a study that measured brain activity along with whether or not the people hooked, it turns out that non-hookers (normal people) of both handedness had the side of the brains light up that was opposite of their hands, which is a fact we all know about.
But for hookers, left-handers who hooked had their left-handed side activated and right-handers the right side. The hooking action seems to show that the hand is resisting what it's doing, and that if you hook lefty you're NOT an actual lefty, you're a righty. The right handed hookers are actually LEFTY. by lefty and right I mean that the way they were born, which side of their brain has the motor skills for writing. It's always the opposite unless you hook, the study found (Except in one case, which might have been ambidextrous, I don't remember.)
Half of the left-handers I've seen are hookers. Meaning, they are left-handers because their parents thought it was fashionable or cute instead of because their brain wants it. Please don't quote the first sentence in this paragraph out of context.
In Soviet Russia, Ads Pop Up in 4D Space! Err...
The funny thing was that when the last episode of the mole 2 was shown, they told us about all the secret stuff in the show. Turns out that what I caught was in episode 16, but it had also been done in episode 13, which I didn't see... and nobody caught it ever. But of course, once I announced it when it came up in episode 16 after watching the title screen in slow motion, all of a sudden it became common knowledge when people woke up in the morning and read my statements.
I saw a digitized graphic inside an ABC show (The Mole 2) that directly stated who the Mole was. I did this upon reviewing the beginning of the show, which I taped, right after it ended. I posted this on abc.com message boards for the show, and nobody, not even the regulars even believed me. Then, 12 hours later, people started to post stuff about it, many of whom were the non-believers and obviously didn't find it themselves. And nobody could say "you were the one who found it" even though nobody else did. People submitted my fact to different fan sites of that show without giving credit to me.
Basically, human nature is such that you must remember this lesson. The more people there are who know about something, the higher the chance somebody will take complete credit for it or say "they don't know who it was". So, though little things like that aren't important about getting credit for, it still wouldn't hurt if people STOPPED BEING FUCKING HUMANS and stopped misleading others by stating something without stating the author, thus purposely misleading the audience into thinking they thought of it. There are many people like this, so if you are going to find something out yourself, make sure to contact the press and web sites at the same time. Don't just announce it to one web site.
I forgot to mention this tidbit that came to my head:
When the video then ended, and the credits showed Copyright 2001, it hit me that this is how the terrorists might have got the idea for 9/11. And what happened? Terrorists sent the first two planes into the WTC. They got the idea about the crashing planes in the first place from that video. And did it to the WTC just because the video said it couldn't be done. Plus, they had tried the WTC in 1993. And just in case the engineer was right, they wanted to send a plane to DC also.
Don't make the mistake of comparing with the WTC; those buildings were mostly open space and were not designed to take any kind of impact.
I saw a show with my family on building the WTC a few months after 9/11. That video was Copyrighted in 2000 or early 2001. It was shot BEFORE 9/11, and it was shown on the history channel or TLC because I guess they had a video of that lying around. It showed how the WTC looked on a blueprint with its columns, people falling off during construction, and talked about and showed video of the elevators inside WTC and how they were designed to only go like 10 levels at a time and then you switch elevators, that's because it would be a waste for 1 elevator to go from floor 1 to the top or something I don't remember. But the whole video was like, this is an engineering marvel.
Engineers and one of the top engineers of the WTC was interviewed throughout the program. In the closing minutes, one guy says something along the lines of it was build so that even if a jet crashed into it, it would withstand the impact.
So yes, it was designed to be that strong. And yes, it failed on what it was assumed it could do. So your comment doesn't apply.
were in dos, and thus before Windows 3.1 even existed!
If you only use 30 minutes a month, the best way to go is this. Buy a tracfone.com phone for 70-90$ during the holidays when it includes a thing to extend your deadline a full year for free. You also get 30 mins with it. Then buy a card for $80 for 350 minutes, which are going to be streched out to a full year. (The original purchase also gave me a free 20 minutes every time I buy another card for the next 12 times). Then buy a a yearly extention card for $99 that adds alike another 200 minutes (plus 20 from the bonus) and extends your deadline another year. And, any minutes you don't use remain on your phone! Forever!
post
I was able to teach myself programming languages when I was 14. Actually, a lot of CS freshman already know some programming languages. So my question to him is...
What the hell do you think CS majors do for four years? When you use my logic, you see that there is a whole lot of space for learning. Outside of that "knowing the programming language" stuff that you and pre-CS people know already, like IF FOR WHILE FUNCTIONS CLASSES and RECURSION, there is clearly four years for students to learn stuff beyond that they already know, so what it could be? What could CS majors be learning? How to say Hello World? Doing more of same? No. No. Just like if I take Thermodynamics and Physics 3 and all of a sudden I understand the intricancies of your major. Nope.
Just because you sat inside a classroom for four years then work in engineering doesn't mean shit that you're actually worth more than a guy working in computer science out of high school. The point is that you are no better than someone doing computer science (notice I said doing) in real life. Sure we can all learn "computer science" in one of 3,000 colleges, and we can learn a programming language from DeVry, and work in IT, but that doesn't mean we are *doing* Computer Science.
Those people actually using the stuff learned in computer science as part of their job definitely do compare to engineers. But then again, even engineers don't do complex stuff all the time, usually it's repetitive from their previous projects. So, what is so bad about not going to college and being a wiz kid in CS? If there was a license in CS and you could pass it without college, so what? But there isn't a license, and most of the time, you don't use CS, just programming. In that case, you can buy a Programming programming book. OMG I've seen some of them... Or a Computer Science programming book, that would be better. But learning CS (as in advanced computer science stuff), few do that just like few can get through engineering by taking thermo and other subjects by themselves--its just easier to go to college.
I think it's those frenchmen behind it again...
When people say "hate" they don't mean they detest something, they just imply that "omg look what our world turned into" but they can see the important uses of it. Clearly, understanding social skills is above your head. (no, don't look up, "above your head" is another figurative speech term in society.)