They seem to have removed the ability to delete software via upload.com as well. I just sent them a very sternly worded demand to remove my software from their site. I strongly recommend everyone does the same. Make sure to emphasise that you feel the reputation of you as a developer is at risk due to their actions, and that you will tell everyone you know, developer and downloader, never to use a C|Net property.
Developers submit their applications to be listed. They take 3 months to review each update unless a huge fee is paid, and they down-rank the software in search results unless the developer enters their "pay per click" auction where the developer pays C|Net for each click. They also don't allow links to pay for the software unless... you guessed it... the developer pays them yet more money.
Not so. Even if you don't click the ad, you've seen it. And studies have proven that what has been seen cannot be unseen. Which means that next time you think about doing whatever it is they're advertising, you'll recall that ad, even if only at a subconscious level. Impressions can actually be more valuable than clicks to some advertisers.
Since it appears Wikipedia can't get it's shit sorted, let's just go back to the source. It appears the chart on Wikipedia is explicitly excluding the entire Simple Assault category, which is the bulk of the figure for both the US and the UK - according to the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2009 (the latest available) the violent crime rate was 16.9 per 1,000. This means the violent crime rate was 1,690 per 100,000.
Sadly, Google has jumped the shark and let Games on Google+. Not just any games, but Zynga games. I'm dreading when the big G changes it so games can publish directly into feeds, and Zynga destroys another budding social network.
Probably uses a Mac. Apple hasn't caught onto that little fact you see, so any Apple device dies horribly when exposed to multiple networks using the same BSSID/ESSID.
I see you deliberately avoided linking to the actual Wikipedia article on Crime Rates in the United States from where you got that image. After all, the article itself tanks your argument with the statement:
The reported US violent crime rate includes only Aggravated Assault, whereas the Canadian violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including the much-more-numerous Assault level 1 (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm).[31][32] A government study concluded that direct comparison of the 2 countries' violent crime totals or rates was "inappropriate"
And since the UK figures also include all violent crime (not just "assault using a weapon that results in death or injury" like the US figures do), they cannot be directly compared. Your "four times" assertion is invalid.
Aaaaactually, not. The New Zealand Mint is just the legal name of a company that makes bullion coins. Sometimes, they do so under the authority of a government, but they are not in fact contracted to provide minting services to any government nor are they owned by a government. For New Zealand, the actual government mint is the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, and government issue commemorative currency is issued by New Zealand Post.
Firefox can't silent update - it's installed to Program Files. Chrome can because it installs to your Application Data directory (hence why IT admins loathe it).
Not true. On Slashdot, everyone who disagrees with the groupthink is a corporate shill. Everyone knows that. It's not possible to see anything Microsoft does as Good without a paycheck from them. It's not possible to see anything Apple does as Bad without a paycheck from Microsoft. It's not possible to see GPL as Bad without a paycheck from Microsoft (or at least one BSD-licensed project curated by the individual).
How can it be stealing if no-one is deprived of anything? Hypocrisy much? And raw data isn't subject to copyright so it's not copyright infringement either... it's not privacy infringement because it's written in the agreement the user agreed to (and no, I don't subscribe to the "buried in the agreement" offensive - people should take responsibility for reading what they god-damn agree to). Since it's not theft, copyright infringement or privacy infringement, there's no ethical wrongs left...
Of course, you'll counter with "bullshit" and some inarticulate ranting, because you hate Microsoft and love Google. Seriously people, get over it. These companies do not care about you, why should you care about them.
Ok, my apologies - it appears the word sex itself isn't on the blacklist. But almost any word following it is. See http://www.2600.com/googleblacklist/ for an interesting list. (Note: don't do it from work, your corporate filter will not be impressed).
You're cherry picking historical info just to make your point correct. Note the following from your Wiki article.
The Internet Network Information Center, known as InterNIC, was the Internet governing body primarily responsible for domain name and IP address allocations from 1972 until September 18, 1998 when this role was assumed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
And from interNIC.net.
InterNIC is a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce. It is licensed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which operates this web site.
InterNIC is merely a service mark owned by DoC. They license it, the service mark, to ICANN, no contracting of any services - ICANN completely assumed control of the technical administration of the internet. The Department of Commerce has exactly zero control over it.
The US government has control over exactly one zone: . (No, that's not a typo. The zone is a fullstop). This means that the best the US government can do is knock an entire TLD out of the DNS. Like.com, or.br, or.ru. Even that zone they farm out to Verisign to maintain.
Because in my case, Google has the extremely annoying habit around 30%+ of the time of changing my search query to something largely unrelated. And even when it doesn't say "Searching for XXX. Click here to search for YYY", 90% of the time it pretends words in my search query aren't actually relevant. It's a rare query where I don't have to make multiple goes at it, trying to figure out how to make Google actually take notice of the parts of the query that are actually important.
Put a + in front of the words that it keeps ignoring. The + tells it that the keyword is mandatory and you only want pages that actually contain it.
Actually, Google has a gigantic blacklist of fragments that when they are detected, immediately cancel Instant and display the message "Press enter to search". Sex is one of those, including virtually every other NSFW fragment out there. Just try it sometime - enable Instant and type "sex" into the bar. It will not display results.
Just tried it, as well as searching Bing for "search". In both cases, the engine upon which I was searching had themselves as the sixth result (i.e. Bing had Bing as the sixth result, and Google had Google as the sixth result). Google had Bing as first, while Bing had Google as third. Searching for email was similarly hilarious. Bing had Gmail as third, followed by Hotmail. Google had Hotmail as first, followed by Gmail. Searching for maps was just laughable - Bing had Bing Maps as 13th (page two!) with Google Maps as second. Google had Bing maps as fourth, but Google Maps as first.
Clearly neither favours their own services. Except in one case. Searching for "translate", Bing added a non-search result link to Microsoft translate above the listings (of which Google Translate was first, and Microsoft translate was 8th). Google had Google translate as first, and it was the only one with this extra links under it that make it take up half the page. Microsoft translate was 14th, although it was also a related search.
It's not stealing if the user consented to it (which they did when they installed it). Links clicked on by users is no more Google's data than your house belongs to me.
I just tried it, and they both returned the official site first. Amusingly, Google's related searches were all regarding the Office 365 product, while Microsoft recommended "OpenOffice" as the first related search. I begin to wonder if Microsoft isn't intentionally downgrading their own products in results to stave off anti-trust attention.
Bollocks..com and.net are operated by Verisign, Inc. Formerly a hugely overpriced certificate authority until they sold off everything but registry operations to an overpriced bloated antivirus company.
There'll be a giant shitstorm coming in November too, since word is that Apple is declaring sandboxing as mandatory, which will destroy entire swathes of application categories.
Also, Chrome also runs Low Integrity in Windows 7. Sadly, Opera and Firefox both run in Medium integrity. You can still use ICACLS to drop the integrity level if you feel like it though.
UAC doesn't automatically pop up in response to the program trying to do something. UAC pops up because the program specifically told Windows "I need to elevate" - there's no facility for it to tell Windows WHY. Perhaps there should be, but that's why it can't do it now.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, you might want to check for your software on Brothersoft.com as well - they also do this, but they don't require you to submit your software.
They seem to have removed the ability to delete software via upload.com as well. I just sent them a very sternly worded demand to remove my software from their site. I strongly recommend everyone does the same. Make sure to emphasise that you feel the reputation of you as a developer is at risk due to their actions, and that you will tell everyone you know, developer and downloader, never to use a C|Net property.
Actually, no, they cannot.
Developers submit their applications to be listed. They take 3 months to review each update unless a huge fee is paid, and they down-rank the software in search results unless the developer enters their "pay per click" auction where the developer pays C|Net for each click. They also don't allow links to pay for the software unless... you guessed it... the developer pays them yet more money.
Not so. Even if you don't click the ad, you've seen it. And studies have proven that what has been seen cannot be unseen. Which means that next time you think about doing whatever it is they're advertising, you'll recall that ad, even if only at a subconscious level. Impressions can actually be more valuable than clicks to some advertisers.
Since it appears Wikipedia can't get it's shit sorted, let's just go back to the source. It appears the chart on Wikipedia is explicitly excluding the entire Simple Assault category, which is the bulk of the figure for both the US and the UK - according to the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2009 (the latest available) the violent crime rate was 16.9 per 1,000. This means the violent crime rate was 1,690 per 100,000.
You know, that figure looks familiar...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_Kingdom#Extent_of_crime
UK: 16 per 1k, 1600 per 100k.
Oh, so not so much better after all. In fact, the US is just barely worse than the UK.
Sadly, Google has jumped the shark and let Games on Google+. Not just any games, but Zynga games. I'm dreading when the big G changes it so games can publish directly into feeds, and Zynga destroys another budding social network.
Probably uses a Mac. Apple hasn't caught onto that little fact you see, so any Apple device dies horribly when exposed to multiple networks using the same BSSID/ESSID.
I see you deliberately avoided linking to the actual Wikipedia article on Crime Rates in the United States from where you got that image. After all, the article itself tanks your argument with the statement:
The reported US violent crime rate includes only Aggravated Assault, whereas the Canadian violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including the much-more-numerous Assault level 1 (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm).[31][32] A government study concluded that direct comparison of the 2 countries' violent crime totals or rates was "inappropriate"
And since the UK figures also include all violent crime (not just "assault using a weapon that results in death or injury" like the US figures do), they cannot be directly compared. Your "four times" assertion is invalid.
Windows Phone is not Windows Mobile. It's not even slightly related.
Aaaaactually, not. The New Zealand Mint is just the legal name of a company that makes bullion coins. Sometimes, they do so under the authority of a government, but they are not in fact contracted to provide minting services to any government nor are they owned by a government. For New Zealand, the actual government mint is the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, and government issue commemorative currency is issued by New Zealand Post.
Firefox can't silent update - it's installed to Program Files. Chrome can because it installs to your Application Data directory (hence why IT admins loathe it).
Not true. On Slashdot, everyone who disagrees with the groupthink is a corporate shill. Everyone knows that. It's not possible to see anything Microsoft does as Good without a paycheck from them. It's not possible to see anything Apple does as Bad without a paycheck from Microsoft. It's not possible to see GPL as Bad without a paycheck from Microsoft (or at least one BSD-licensed project curated by the individual).
Sites this big likely get paid CPM, not CPC. This means merely seeing them is enough.
How can it be stealing if no-one is deprived of anything? Hypocrisy much? And raw data isn't subject to copyright so it's not copyright infringement either... it's not privacy infringement because it's written in the agreement the user agreed to (and no, I don't subscribe to the "buried in the agreement" offensive - people should take responsibility for reading what they god-damn agree to). Since it's not theft, copyright infringement or privacy infringement, there's no ethical wrongs left...
Of course, you'll counter with "bullshit" and some inarticulate ranting, because you hate Microsoft and love Google. Seriously people, get over it. These companies do not care about you, why should you care about them.
Ok, my apologies - it appears the word sex itself isn't on the blacklist. But almost any word following it is. See http://www.2600.com/googleblacklist/ for an interesting list. (Note: don't do it from work, your corporate filter will not be impressed).
You're cherry picking historical info just to make your point correct. Note the following from your Wiki article.
The Internet Network Information Center, known as InterNIC, was the Internet governing body primarily responsible for domain name and IP address allocations from 1972 until September 18, 1998 when this role was assumed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
And from interNIC.net.
InterNIC is a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce. It is licensed to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which operates this web site.
InterNIC is merely a service mark owned by DoC. They license it, the service mark, to ICANN, no contracting of any services - ICANN completely assumed control of the technical administration of the internet. The Department of Commerce has exactly zero control over it.
The US government has control over exactly one zone: . (No, that's not a typo. The zone is a fullstop). This means that the best the US government can do is knock an entire TLD out of the DNS. Like .com, or .br, or .ru. Even that zone they farm out to Verisign to maintain.
Because in my case, Google has the extremely annoying habit around 30%+ of the time of changing my search query to something largely unrelated. And even when it doesn't say "Searching for XXX. Click here to search for YYY", 90% of the time it pretends words in my search query aren't actually relevant. It's a rare query where I don't have to make multiple goes at it, trying to figure out how to make Google actually take notice of the parts of the query that are actually important.
Put a + in front of the words that it keeps ignoring. The + tells it that the keyword is mandatory and you only want pages that actually contain it.
Actually, Google has a gigantic blacklist of fragments that when they are detected, immediately cancel Instant and display the message "Press enter to search". Sex is one of those, including virtually every other NSFW fragment out there. Just try it sometime - enable Instant and type "sex" into the bar. It will not display results.
Just tried it, as well as searching Bing for "search". In both cases, the engine upon which I was searching had themselves as the sixth result (i.e. Bing had Bing as the sixth result, and Google had Google as the sixth result). Google had Bing as first, while Bing had Google as third. Searching for email was similarly hilarious. Bing had Gmail as third, followed by Hotmail. Google had Hotmail as first, followed by Gmail. Searching for maps was just laughable - Bing had Bing Maps as 13th (page two!) with Google Maps as second. Google had Bing maps as fourth, but Google Maps as first.
Clearly neither favours their own services. Except in one case. Searching for "translate", Bing added a non-search result link to Microsoft translate above the listings (of which Google Translate was first, and Microsoft translate was 8th). Google had Google translate as first, and it was the only one with this extra links under it that make it take up half the page. Microsoft translate was 14th, although it was also a related search.
It's not stealing if the user consented to it (which they did when they installed it). Links clicked on by users is no more Google's data than your house belongs to me.
Here's a very interesting post which drills down into the specifics of the whole rigmarole: http://directmatchmedia.com/google-proves-bing.php
You say that as if they where being evil, but sometimes their services are the most relevant. I do find kind of funny that neither show Office 365 for that query, and if you go looking for it, only Google shows the official service's site first.
I just tried it, and they both returned the official site first. Amusingly, Google's related searches were all regarding the Office 365 product, while Microsoft recommended "OpenOffice" as the first related search. I begin to wonder if Microsoft isn't intentionally downgrading their own products in results to stave off anti-trust attention.
Bollocks. .com and .net are operated by Verisign, Inc. Formerly a hugely overpriced certificate authority until they sold off everything but registry operations to an overpriced bloated antivirus company.
There'll be a giant shitstorm coming in November too, since word is that Apple is declaring sandboxing as mandatory, which will destroy entire swathes of application categories.
Also, Chrome also runs Low Integrity in Windows 7. Sadly, Opera and Firefox both run in Medium integrity. You can still use ICACLS to drop the integrity level if you feel like it though.
UAC doesn't automatically pop up in response to the program trying to do something. UAC pops up because the program specifically told Windows "I need to elevate" - there's no facility for it to tell Windows WHY. Perhaps there should be, but that's why it can't do it now.