True, I've been thru the border a number of times recently, and they really don't care. But had my name appeared on some watch list, I'm sure they would have searched everything.
But there are exceptions..There is a so called constitution-free-zone in the US where customs and migration and border patrol are free to search you any time they want. The zone covers 100 miles inland of any border.
For Craigslist and other uses for a disposable number where I don't trust the other party, Google Voice is very handy. Just this use alone makes it worth having.
Worth having? Or Worth Paying for?
Google doesn't make much if any profit on GV, and you might find it "spring cleaned" right out of existence if they don't find a way to do so. How much would you pay per month for this service?
The numbers now go to a bank of computers. There are no physical lines anywhere. Its all done via the internet.
When any number has no routing, you get a recording that says something like
"this number has been changed or disconnected".
Google could (but wouldn't) turn it off overnight. Even when Google spring cleans something (google reader) totally out of existence, they give you the chance to download your existing data, and a date certain when it will disappear.
Google and other ads are specifically designed to look like search results and exploit the fact that older people cannot see contrast of the background as well as younger people. Or even younger people using bad quality or badly calibrated monitors. (Or using Flux).
This is pure Google-hate boiling over.
Google ads are CLEARLY delineated. Via several different methods. Color. A text notice, that won't be missed even using a text only black and white browser.
Search something simple like "Ford Fusion" All the adds are sequestered at the top and right side. All the Ads are labeled with "Ads related to ford fusion" All the ads are color coded.
Now go do the same search on BING. Its not so clear, in fact you are left guessing. Any tint is so subtle you can't really see it.
Be sure you turn off you ad blocker before you do these tests, because Bing slips in ads even with the ad blocker on, but Google doesn't.
By now you know how Google makes their money, unless you have been hiding under a rock.
Actually this Gentle Reminder form the FTC is NOT aimed at Google. Google is in compliance. Google was in compliance even before the 2002 directive was issued.
BING? they are clearly out of compliance.
Google something simple, like any make of car for instance: Ford Mustang
On google you will CLEARLY be able to tell what is a paid advertisement from a simple web content hit. On bing, you are left guessing.
Google already does this... if you search for a product the first results you get are "Ads related to {Your Search Terms}" There are usually two or three online retailers followed by local retailers and google map showing those local retailers.
Actually the FTC letter is much clearer on this than the summary. (Hey, its Slashdot, what else is new?)
The FTC letter addresses PAID search results. (As well as the super-set of paid search results that are PROMOTED search results).
These must be distinguished from hits on the text of the page. The net result is that if your company is a Google advertiser (adwords for example) and one of the hits shown brings up your Adwords link it must be clearly delineated from the list of hits that just trigger based on the content of the page.
Even if both are present, only the paid advertising must be so marked.
And I agree, Google does a pretty good job of making the distinction, both on the desktop and on mobile devices.
Bing: Not so much.
For instance, I searched a random thing: Peach Trees. I used both Bing and Google. Google clearly showed what was paid advertising. With Bing, I was never really sure, other than one result is always promoted to the top with an option to "only show results from".
I'm left guessing if ANY results are paid or not.
Try it again, using any random make of car, say Ford Mustang or Toyota Prius. Google clearly differentiates the Paid ads. Bing does not.
I fully concede that the story used the wrong spelling, but occasionally grammar Nazis need to be shown that their way is not the only way, and old idioms are re-purposed in English. Verbing Weirds Language, yet we do it every day.
It does in many way sounds like it could be exploited as a tax dodge too. And the thing is, these would be companies free/open source people wouldn't have ever heard of, because they would be fake.
That seems like a conclusion jumped to with not a single example.
These are hardly companies you have never heard of. But each of them have probably taken a lot of money out of the pocket of other big players in the industry. Players that have influence. Players that hold grudges. Players that can write letters and offer campaign donations.
This isn't about catching fake companies, its a political payback for large corporations.
The thing about a non-profit is that it really doesn't reduce tax revenue much at all. The money has to go somewhere, to the employees as salary or perks that have to be reported on their tax forms. It all gets taxed in the end.
What's funny about this is that my first job as a college intern was for a non-profit software and database services company. Even something that looks from all outward appearances to be a for-profit entity can be a non-profit and there's nothing unusual about that.
Some business areas are dominated by non-profits.
You would hope that the IRS would have some pretty precise rules and actually have them written down somewhere.
RTFM.
Actually I suspect that there was bitching from other companies who shall remain nameless but who's Name MIGHT start with the letter "Microsoft" or the letter "Oracle"
Nobody is getting rich writing opensource, but a some people see it as a way of getting poorer.
If some of these companies were able to influence the IRS with a word ($) to a senator here, or a letter there, and prevent or slow down the forking of previously opensource software that your company had just taken private, I suspect they would do it in a heartbeat.
We've had a lot of new opensource companies spring out of the woodwork lately, usually after the userbase becomes fed up with the new ownership. Often the very same people who sold out their opensource software packages turn around and fork them again as opensource.
There would be a strong temptation on the part of buyers of that opensource software, who now find themselves completely cuckold to bitch to the IRS.
As long as YOU get to decide what is the right way, there would only be one computer language. Your pet language.
Look, its pretty clear you are totally ignorant about COBOL, and have maybe looked at a couple programs once, but your pontifications clearly indicate you haven't a single clue.
There is on thing every new COBOL complains about in COBOL: Its too verbose. There is one thin that every COBOL journeyman loves about COBOL: Its so verbose and easy to read.
The constitution was written as a guide, a mere framework. It was never intended to spell out every detail. (Unlike the constitution of the EU which not only spells out in detail what you must do but what you must THINK).
The Constitution left a lot to be defined by Congress, and just about EVERY detail concerning the Copyright clause is an act of congress, and as such can be changed and molded to our times.
The original text in the constitution says nothing at all about patents, doesn't in fact require an actual invention, (merely discoveries), recognizes in passing that you can't own it for ever (Limited Time) and grantes "exclusive rights" (which wasn't a concept that was well defined even in that time, let alone for all time since).
Most scholars believe that Exclusive meant exactly that, you couldn't copy another persons invention for a horse drawn carriage brake and put it on the carriages you produce until the limited time had passed. No one else could take your book down to the printer and have 100 copies made without you getting any profit for a limited time.
Most also agree that a patent or copyright was never intended to last long enough to hold back progress in the arts and sciences. It was always intended as a running head start. They didn't expect patents to live long enough to be sold period.
situation was "normal" and even "favourable" because potentially destructive energy was being released through the tremors.
This is still the most often repeated information today around the world for small swarms of quakes over long fault lines. If it had been proven wrong even a tenth to the time, don't you think the seismologists would stop saying it?
In fact, on that last note, I might add, if some jerkoff troll has been sittin' on a patent for more than a three years, and not made any effort to get it to be useful, then any lawsuit regarding it's "noble" cause should be tossed out and the patent invalid.
I'm much more generous than you. I'd give them 5 years to start producing something or hiring it done. After that, its fair game.
That is a valid viewpoint, as long as you some how come up with the Government Funded Institutions that you so blithely assume into existence. And then you would have to prevent this from becoming yet another boondoggle wasting money pushing paper around while people are dying from heart disease. Your faith in government is cute.
Yes, if we abolish medical patents, there will be a loss of future revenues for Big Pharma
Yes, if we abolish medical patents, there will be a loss of millions of lives.
Fixed it for you.
It seems obvious you want to hand-wave this problem away as if it didn't exist or would be easy to solve by pointing to a few shoe string cases through history. Salk and Sabin ALWAYS had government funding of one form or another, and their expenses were actually quite trivial compared to the research requirements of today.
It seems doubtful you will be dissuaded from your confiscatory views, and your child like solutions. I realize the futility of the conversation.
Speaking as an inventor of more than 50 patents - the current system _is_ broken, but not in the way that these reforms are trying to fix
You say this, but then you document the practices that might indeed be fixed by some of the proposed legislation. Specifically I suggest you reread some of the proposals in the Cornyn bill. These are aimed precisely at adjusting tie imbalance.
This is directly based on the Constitutional purpose of a Patent - to give inventors an "exclusive right to practice" their invention.
Actually, the text is this:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
There is no "right to practice", and no expectation that the inventor must "practice" his invention. They are guaranteed something but that something can take the form of money.
I don't disagree with your assessment, simply that the form that "exclusivity" must take in the modern world.
Exclusive RIGHTS might mean that royalty payments would satisfy this right. Judges have already found that if you can be made whole by money, then you normally don't get an import ban. (see first para of linked article)
So it seems that monetary transfer is already considered sufficient in the eyes of the court.
Slashdot Mirror
And the City Key is much faster, but noisy.
Nice custom crop job.
You deliberately cut off the top indicator that stated "Ads Related to [search term] which has an info circle.
Why should I read anything you post when you go out of your way to custom crop what Google puts on the page?
True, I've been thru the border a number of times recently, and they really don't care.
But had my name appeared on some watch list, I'm sure they would have searched everything.
But there are exceptions. .There is a so called constitution-free-zone in the US where
customs and migration and border patrol are free to search you any time they want.
The zone covers 100 miles inland of any border.
For Craigslist and other uses for a disposable number where I don't trust the other party, Google Voice is very handy. Just this use alone makes it worth having.
Worth having? Or Worth Paying for?
Google doesn't make much if any profit on GV, and you might find it "spring cleaned" right out of existence if they don't find a way to do so.
How much would you pay per month for this service?
The numbers now go to a bank of computers. There are no physical lines anywhere. Its all done via the internet.
When any number has no routing, you get a recording that says something like
"this number has been changed or disconnected".
Google could (but wouldn't) turn it off overnight.
Even when Google spring cleans something (google reader) totally out of existence, they give you the chance
to download your existing data, and a date certain when it will disappear.
Google and other ads are specifically designed to look like search results and exploit the fact that older people cannot see contrast of the background as well as younger people. Or even younger people using bad quality or badly calibrated monitors. (Or using Flux).
This is pure Google-hate boiling over.
Google ads are CLEARLY delineated. Via several different methods. Color. A text notice, that won't be missed even using a text only black and white browser.
Search something simple like "Ford Fusion"
All the adds are sequestered at the top and right side.
All the Ads are labeled with "Ads related to ford fusion"
All the ads are color coded.
Now go do the same search on BING. Its not so clear, in fact you are left guessing.
Any tint is so subtle you can't really see it.
Be sure you turn off you ad blocker before you do these tests, because Bing slips in ads
even with the ad blocker on, but Google doesn't.
By now you know how Google makes their money, unless you have been hiding under a rock.
Actually this Gentle Reminder form the FTC is NOT aimed at Google. Google is in compliance. Google was in compliance even before the 2002 directive was issued.
BING? they are clearly out of compliance.
Google something simple, like any make of car for instance: Ford Mustang
On google you will CLEARLY be able to tell what is a paid advertisement from a simple web content hit.
On bing, you are left guessing.
Google already does this... if you search for a product the first results you get are "Ads related to {Your Search Terms}" There are usually two or three online retailers followed by local retailers and google map showing those local retailers.
Actually the FTC letter is much clearer on this than the summary. (Hey, its Slashdot, what else is new?)
The FTC letter addresses PAID search results. (As well as the super-set of paid search results that are PROMOTED search results).
These must be distinguished from hits on the text of the page. The net result is that if your company is a Google advertiser (adwords for example) and one of the hits shown brings up your Adwords link it must be clearly delineated from the list of hits that just trigger based on the content of the page.
Even if both are present, only the paid advertising must be so marked.
And I agree, Google does a pretty good job of making the distinction, both on the desktop and on mobile devices.
Bing: Not so much.
For instance, I searched a random thing: Peach Trees.
I used both Bing and Google. Google clearly showed what was paid advertising.
With Bing, I was never really sure, other than one result is always promoted to the top with an option to "only show results from".
I'm left guessing if ANY results are paid or not.
Try it again, using any random make of car, say Ford Mustang or Toyota Prius.
Google clearly differentiates the Paid ads.
Bing does not.
No, I doubt it was what was intended.
I fully concede that the story used the wrong spelling, but occasionally grammar Nazis need to be shown that their way is not the only way, and old idioms are re-purposed in English. Verbing Weirds Language, yet we do it every day.
I think its just as likely Google Voice will be "Spring Cleaned" out of existence.
Google hasn't found a way to monetize it in any meaningful way.
In this case, I suspect the answer of NO is exactly right.
I believe Google Voice won't be a second class messaging service.
I suspect it will cease to exist altogether in an upcoming Google "spring cleaning".
They (Google) aren't making much (if any) money on it. It has been stagnant for years with no improvements.
So Betteridges Law will hold, the answer will be NO, it won't be a second class service. It will be gone in two years. (or less)
It does in many way sounds like it could be exploited as a tax dodge too. And the thing is, these would be companies free/open source people wouldn't have ever heard of, because they would be fake.
That seems like a conclusion jumped to with not a single example.
Check out the first line on this page: http://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/
Or this IRS letter proudly displayed on the Apache Foundation. http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/ASF-501c3.pdf
Or the statements on the Samba website: http://www.samba.org/samba/donations.html
These are hardly companies you have never heard of.
But each of them have probably taken a lot of money out of the pocket of other big players in the industry.
Players that have influence. Players that hold grudges. Players that can write letters and offer campaign donations.
This isn't about catching fake companies, its a political payback for large corporations.
The thing about a non-profit is that it really doesn't reduce tax revenue much at all. The money has to go somewhere, to the employees as salary or perks that have to be reported on their tax forms. It all gets taxed in the end.
What's funny about this is that my first job as a college intern was for a non-profit software and database services company. Even something that looks from all outward appearances to be a for-profit entity can be a non-profit and there's nothing unusual about that.
Some business areas are dominated by non-profits.
You would hope that the IRS would have some pretty precise rules and actually have them written down somewhere.
RTFM.
Actually I suspect that there was bitching from other companies who shall remain nameless but who's Name MIGHT start with the letter "Microsoft" or the letter "Oracle"
Nobody is getting rich writing opensource, but a some people see it as a way of getting poorer.
If some of these companies were able to influence the IRS with a word ($) to a senator here, or a letter there, and prevent or slow down the forking of previously opensource software that your company had just taken private, I suspect they would do it in a heartbeat.
We've had a lot of new opensource companies spring out of the woodwork lately, usually after the userbase becomes fed up with the new ownership. Often the very same people who sold out their opensource software packages turn around and fork them again as opensource.
There would be a strong temptation on the part of buyers of that opensource software, who now find themselves completely cuckold to bitch to the IRS.
As long as YOU get to decide what is the right way, there would only be one computer language. Your pet language.
Look, its pretty clear you are totally ignorant about COBOL, and have maybe looked at a couple programs once, but your pontifications clearly indicate you haven't a single clue.
There is on thing every new COBOL complains about in COBOL: Its too verbose.
There is one thin that every COBOL journeyman loves about COBOL: Its so verbose and easy to read.
The constitution was written as a guide, a mere framework. It was never intended to spell out every detail. (Unlike the constitution of the EU which not only spells out in detail what you must do but what you must THINK).
The Constitution left a lot to be defined by Congress, and just about EVERY detail concerning the Copyright clause is an act of congress, and as such can be changed and molded to our times.
The original text in the constitution says nothing at all about patents, doesn't in fact require an actual invention, (merely discoveries), recognizes in passing that you can't own it for ever (Limited Time) and grantes "exclusive rights" (which wasn't a concept that was well defined even in that time, let alone for all time since).
Most scholars believe that Exclusive meant exactly that, you couldn't copy another persons invention for a horse drawn carriage brake and put it on the carriages you produce until the limited time had passed. No one else could take your book down to the printer and have 100 copies made without you getting any profit for a limited time.
Most also agree that a patent or copyright was never intended to last long enough to hold back progress in the arts and sciences. It was always intended as a running head start. They didn't expect patents to live long enough to be sold period.
Yup. Because looking into it is all the FTC will do.
They aren't going to roll back the deal.
This is profunctory, and they lose interest quickly from here on out.
You couldn't in 2009 you idiot.
I'm all for this, with or without patent reform.
It will ruffle a lot of feathers, but there are a hundred things they could work on immediately.
situation was "normal" and even "favourable" because potentially destructive energy was being released through the tremors.
This is still the most often repeated information today around the world for small swarms of quakes over long fault lines.
If it had been proven wrong even a tenth to the time, don't you think the seismologists would stop saying it?
In fact, on that last note, I might add, if some jerkoff troll has been sittin' on a patent for more than a three years, and not made any effort to get it to be useful, then any lawsuit regarding it's "noble" cause should be tossed out and the patent invalid.
I'm much more generous than you. I'd give them 5 years to start producing something or hiring it done. After that, its fair game.
That is a valid viewpoint, as long as you some how come up with the Government Funded Institutions that you so blithely assume into existence. And then you would have to prevent this from becoming yet another boondoggle wasting money pushing paper around while people are dying from heart disease. Your faith in government is cute.
Yes, if we abolish medical patents, there will be a loss of future revenues for Big Pharma
Yes, if we abolish medical patents, there will be a loss of millions of lives.
Fixed it for you.
It seems obvious you want to hand-wave this problem away as if it didn't exist or would be easy to solve
by pointing to a few shoe string cases through history. Salk and Sabin ALWAYS had government funding
of one form or another, and their expenses were actually quite trivial compared to the research requirements
of today.
It seems doubtful you will be dissuaded from your confiscatory views, and your child like solutions. I realize the
futility of the conversation.
Speaking as an inventor of more than 50 patents - the current system _is_ broken, but not in the way that these reforms are trying to fix
You say this, but then you document the practices that might indeed be fixed by some of the proposed legislation. Specifically I suggest you reread some of the proposals in the Cornyn bill. These are aimed precisely at adjusting tie imbalance.
This is directly based on the Constitutional purpose of a Patent - to give inventors an "exclusive right to practice" their invention.
Actually, the text is this:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
There is no "right to practice", and no expectation that the inventor must "practice" his invention. They are guaranteed something but that something can take the form of money.
I don't disagree with your assessment, simply that the form that "exclusivity" must take in the modern world.
Exclusive RIGHTS might mean that royalty payments would satisfy this right. Judges have already found that if you can be made whole by money, then you normally don't get an import ban. (see first para of linked article)
So it seems that monetary transfer is already considered sufficient in the eyes of the court.