I believe the purpose of the rule is to ensure that Google can continue to do automated evaluation of web pages and that that evaluation represents well what a user would evaluate the page as if they read it.
Thus, they penalize anyone who makes this automated evaluation more difficult (or perhaps exceedingly difficult), even if they did the "wrong thing for the right reasons". It isn't a value judgement about individual cases, it's just an attempt to maintain teh viability of their business model.
Also, I disagree that BMW is the only good result when searching for BMW. In most cases they are the best result though.
The Soviets sent probes to Venus a while back and retured pictures. Color pictures in the visible spectrum.
It has a horizon and due to the extreme fisheye it is perhaps difficult to tell just how far the horizon is, but it appears to be perhaps 10 meters or a bit more.
In the case of BMW, it wasn't invisible text. Everything was visible, I believe. The thing was that they would use a Javascript-based redirect so that browsers wouldn't even show that page at all, they would immediately go to another page. Only search engines would see that page.
As to the capitalized sentence, that's just a detail. Google penalized them for skirting their system, not for being spammers. Google doesn't want sites to do this, presumably because they fear they would have trouble making an automated way to rank these sites as if they were viewed by the user, it would increase Google's overhead significantly. I don't have a problem with this.
I think the idea of testing keywords for spam will only be as successful as testing email for spam. That is, less than 100% successful, and those that succeed in fooling Google are massively rewarded with hits. So I don't think your suggestion is feasible.
Google doesn't like you presenting different data to their search engine than the user would find if they visited. And I can easily see why. Sites would abuse the heck out of it.
There was no way to make the VIA KT133A systems stable. It wasn't AMD's fault. It's maddening too, because you can almost get them stable, but not quite. I had two different KT133A motherboards (one Tyan, one Asus), no difference. I finally replaced mine with a later KT (KT266A?) and it became stable.
Look up the problems with soundblaster sound cards, they exhibit the problem, but it wasn't Creative's fault.
I've had the same experience as you. I've alternated Intel and AMD, and except for the KT133A they've both been good. The Intels in general have been a bit more stable, but all have been okay except that one chipset.
I recently took apart my P3-1000. It was flawless and cool from day one.
MS sold track packs and car add ons for PGR2 over Live. And that was before their micropayment push. You don't think they'll do the same for PGR3 now that they are big on this stuff?
I'll grant you, it's possible they won't offer anything, but I think it's quite likely they will.
I didn't say I rabidly despise him. I didn't even say I don't like him.
I like him, I liked the movie, but it wasn't factually correct. I can say this because I LIVED IN FLINT AT THE TIME, same as him. My father was at the negotiating table with the UAW for the contracts that were signed at that time.
He filmed his take on it, it was one take on it, it turned out to be incorrect.
GM looked at the contracts, said "we can't put up with this for long" and began to leave. Moore looked at the contracts, said "GM's making money right now" and said GM was bullshitting when they said it didn't make financial sense to keep those factories going. Moore's view was one-sided and short-sighted. GM's view was correct, those contracts were murder.
I didn't denounce "The Corporation", I ave not seen it. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your argument bolstering it. And whether you think "Roger & Me" is relevant, I notice you didn't rebut the meat of my argument, which is that you have unwisely used awards for artistry as support for the correctness of the message presented.
As a documentar, but it wasn't correct. The GM said at the time they were being killed by the labor market in Michigan. And they were right, the contracts they signed with the UAW then to keep their plants open are the ones that are killing them right now. The Jobs Bank came into being in that timeframe.
The awards for movies are given by artists and mostly for art. Don't confuse recognition of artistic principles with statements underscoring factual correctness.
And he makes some pretty inane or even stupid posts. I think the attention he got probably didn't do him any good.
As to MS employees being a reason he was boned, I have to say that's not too far-fetched to me. But really, I'd have more sympathy if slashdot weren't so consistently off the handle in relation to MS. I mean, it's pretty easy to get a smack even for reasonable opinions about MS and SCO. And his slight wingnuttiness doesn't help much.
It's still seems unfair. Maybe meta-moderating can fix this eventually?
Months ago, MS sold an alternate outfit for Kameo (main character in the game Kameo) for the same price I believe.
I didn't pay and I encourage others not to pay either.
I'm not against micropayments, but I lets make MS work for their money, make them develop good additional content. Like Geometry Wars.
When additional tracks/cars become available for PGR3, I don't know what I will do. I would like the content, but the problem is if we pay them, they'll leave stuff out of the next PGR3 on purpose, just so they can sell it to you later.
Hi-MD was 1GB. Maybe you say they should have used Hi-MD, I can see that. But it was clearly not a large-market item, very few players were compatible with it.
Neither was useful to me. The size of the discs is rather large. One disc is about the size of an iPod. To carry the amount of music I wanted, it took too much space.
But I don't see how they would be open to a lawsuit.
The TV displays content input just fine.
The HD-DVD player just may refuse to output full res sometimes. It probably mentions this in the manual (oh god I hope it doesn't have a EULA!).
It's not a fault of the TV, I don't see the basis of the lawsuit.
Besides, at the time these TVs were sold, there was no such thing as an HD-DVD player. It all was OTA HD and W-VHS. So I'm not sure the user has any expectation that it will work perfectly with all future devices.
Not that I like this downrezzing crap, I just don't like exploratory lawsuits either.
Addtionally, I don't have a link for it, but sometime geothermal stations a reported to produce a constant low rumbling sound. I would have to imagine it would have to be a pretty quiet area in order to notice.
But forget that, great job getting a reference to "The Core" in there.
Journalling makes files accesses slower. The only time it speeds anything is in the error case of unsafe reboots (crashes). And I get those so rarely, I'm sure that I come out way behind on performance due to journalling.
Because there's no upfront fees, just pay per click, people wanting to host ads can switch their ad service company at any time based upon a whim or prospective income. And none of this requires the people visting the site (the eyeballs, and the real source of the money) to change their behavior one iota.
No, internet ad service has an even lower barrier to entry than search engines.
In 1999, these top-tier companies weren't making money, but you couldn't tell from their balance sheets. Have people already forgotten the accounting tricks that were utilized?
Many of these companies were showing positive EBITDA (operational profit before certain costs) at that time, because the market was just starting to demand it. Of course, it was all lies.
Google's profit is probably not lies. And even though they are completely inept with accounting and money (see their pre-IPO share registration scandal, their misstructuring of their employee stock option plans, etc.) it's also likely their profit isn't due to accounting errors either.
But it's also profit in a market with an extremely low barrier to entry, and so will require a lot of maintenance to keep that money coming to them and not their competitors.
Like SUNW was. And another company I forget. Something like 60% of the value of the DJIA was determined by tech stocks at that time. I never understood why they did that, I guess they wanted the DJIA to skyrocket like the NASDAQ was doing. But is the point of an index to skyrocket or to represent what the overall market (or economy) is doing?
Everyone took their eye off the ball back then. And here we go again.
These are processes that need to be done in order to complete another process. It doesn't mean they are parallelizable. If I build a house, I need to put up 4 walls before I can put the roof on and finish it. Does that mean building walls is a parallel operation? Not necessarily, there's no reason I can't build all 4 sequentially.
Some of the setup is the same for all pixels. The polys have to be transformed to the view position space. This is done by transform and lighthing hardware nowadays and is VERY parallelizable.
Then you have to start rendering all the polys. But it is very efficient to render adjacent pixels (and adjacent polys if using a triangle strip) at the same time. That means that it isn't efficient to render adjacent pixels in independent parallel operations.
You can do some operations in parallel, many others you cannot. And the argument that you can do pixels in parallel efficently and trivially is just way off. Primarily the argument that modern rendering is similar to ray-tracing in parallelization is way way off. Ray-tracing is massively parallelizable, you can farm out pixels over even a low-speed network in an almost trivial fashion. Scanline rendering is not the same way.
Look up papers on PixelPlanes (setting the wayback machine to 1989) to see the challenges of scanline rendering in parallel.
For example, if you need to render a triangle, transforming the coordinates and finding the u,v (for texture mapping), then calcuating the normals and interpolating them all has a lot of setup math. You don't want to do this setup math for each pixel.
In fact, unlike ray tracing, where you proceed pixel by pixel, checking all the geometry, in modern techniques you render the parts of the geometry in order into the frame buffer, and due to the magic of z-buffering, the end result frame buffer is complete for all pixels at the same time.
So pretty much what you say about pixels being independent is nearly completely false.
You can still parallelize a lot of stuff, but it isn't as simple as you say and is done using different techniques.
Application of a single scientific principle will probably not be patentable, as it would probably be obvious. Application of a couple principles would up your odds of having your patent granted (and granted usefully).
Additionally, I think you understate the level of "ownership" of a gene. You not only patent extracting and isolating the genes, but also really any kind of interaction with it. That is, if you make a drug that works by identifying and modifying operating of those genes in any way, you probably violate the original patent. It becomes like a "land grab". That is, the group that sequenced it first has an inherent claim to almost anything done with it, even if they would never have thought it.
And you get all of this just for identifying the area of the genome. You didn't invent anything, you discovered something, and just basically what the terrain looks like at that.
And they simply must take steps to ensure they cannot fulfill the request. And I don't mean Andersen shredding documents.
I mean this: if it can be done, the court may compel to you do it. So Google says "we'll keep it, but we won't do anything with it". Even if you believe them, the court may make them do something with it. So they simply can't keep it.
Same with DRM. Sony says "Yeah, a Blu-Ray disc can be made that will deactivate your player's ability to play discs, but we'd never do that." Well, they may not, but a company whose IP was breached may compel Sony to do it. Sony's only real way to avoid this is to not make it possible in the player.
Companies need to take the long view. They want to keep all their options open, but they're just going to end up making a product where the law can compel them to bone customers, and the customers will feel burned eventually.
Stop holding so much control, it's the only way forward.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the purpose of the rule is to ensure that Google can continue to do automated evaluation of web pages and that that evaluation represents well what a user would evaluate the page as if they read it.
Thus, they penalize anyone who makes this automated evaluation more difficult (or perhaps exceedingly difficult), even if they did the "wrong thing for the right reasons". It isn't a value judgement about individual cases, it's just an attempt to maintain teh viability of their business model.
Also, I disagree that BMW is the only good result when searching for BMW. In most cases they are the best result though.
The Soviets sent probes to Venus a while back and retured pictures. Color pictures in the visible spectrum.
m
It has a horizon and due to the extreme fisheye it is perhaps difficult to tell just how far the horizon is, but it appears to be perhaps 10 meters or a bit more.
http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_DigitalImages.ht
In the case of BMW, it wasn't invisible text. Everything was visible, I believe. The thing was that they would use a Javascript-based redirect so that browsers wouldn't even show that page at all, they would immediately go to another page. Only search engines would see that page.
As to the capitalized sentence, that's just a detail. Google penalized them for skirting their system, not for being spammers. Google doesn't want sites to do this, presumably because they fear they would have trouble making an automated way to rank these sites as if they were viewed by the user, it would increase Google's overhead significantly. I don't have a problem with this.
I think the idea of testing keywords for spam will only be as successful as testing email for spam. That is, less than 100% successful, and those that succeed in fooling Google are massively rewarded with hits. So I don't think your suggestion is feasible.
That's in essence what happened to BMW.
Google doesn't like you presenting different data to their search engine than the user would find if they visited. And I can easily see why. Sites would abuse the heck out of it.
See this link amongst many.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4685750.stm
Now the idea is the proposal was rejected because it didn't prove anyting? Don't you do the study after the proposal?
I have to imagine this story was incredibly confused in the internet game of "operator" before it got posted.
They aren't confined to the EU any more than they are confined to Sweden.
.com (or similar) address or gobs of country-by-country addresses. I'm not sure how .eu alleviates this much.
They have to have a
There was no way to make the VIA KT133A systems stable. It wasn't AMD's fault. It's maddening too, because you can almost get them stable, but not quite. I had two different KT133A motherboards (one Tyan, one Asus), no difference. I finally replaced mine with a later KT (KT266A?) and it became stable.
Look up the problems with soundblaster sound cards, they exhibit the problem, but it wasn't Creative's fault.
I've had the same experience as you. I've alternated Intel and AMD, and except for the KT133A they've both been good. The Intels in general have been a bit more stable, but all have been okay except that one chipset.
I recently took apart my P3-1000. It was flawless and cool from day one.
Perhaps he did a lousy study, it wasn't worth $40K, and it was rejected because it was incomplete and not because of any opinions about ID.
Thus proving nothing about his central hypothesis.
Has anyone actually read the study to try to make this decisions for themself?
MS sold track packs and car add ons for PGR2 over Live. And that was before their micropayment push. You don't think they'll do the same for PGR3 now that they are big on this stuff?
I'll grant you, it's possible they won't offer anything, but I think it's quite likely they will.
I didn't say I rabidly despise him. I didn't even say I don't like him.
I like him, I liked the movie, but it wasn't factually correct. I can say this because I LIVED IN FLINT AT THE TIME, same as him. My father was at the negotiating table with the UAW for the contracts that were signed at that time.
He filmed his take on it, it was one take on it, it turned out to be incorrect.
GM looked at the contracts, said "we can't put up with this for long" and began to leave. Moore looked at the contracts, said "GM's making money right now" and said GM was bullshitting when they said it didn't make financial sense to keep those factories going. Moore's view was one-sided and short-sighted. GM's view was correct, those contracts were murder.
I didn't denounce "The Corporation", I ave not seen it. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your argument bolstering it. And whether you think "Roger & Me" is relevant, I notice you didn't rebut the meat of my argument, which is that you have unwisely used awards for artistry as support for the correctness of the message presented.
As a documentar, but it wasn't correct. The GM said at the time they were being killed by the labor market in Michigan. And they were right, the contracts they signed with the UAW then to keep their plants open are the ones that are killing them right now. The Jobs Bank came into being in that timeframe.
The awards for movies are given by artists and mostly for art. Don't confuse recognition of artistic principles with statements underscoring factual correctness.
And he makes some pretty inane or even stupid posts. I think the attention he got probably didn't do him any good.
As to MS employees being a reason he was boned, I have to say that's not too far-fetched to me. But really, I'd have more sympathy if slashdot weren't so consistently off the handle in relation to MS. I mean, it's pretty easy to get a smack even for reasonable opinions about MS and SCO. And his slight wingnuttiness doesn't help much.
It's still seems unfair. Maybe meta-moderating can fix this eventually?
Months ago, MS sold an alternate outfit for Kameo (main character in the game Kameo) for the same price I believe.
I didn't pay and I encourage others not to pay either.
I'm not against micropayments, but I lets make MS work for their money, make them develop good additional content. Like Geometry Wars.
When additional tracks/cars become available for PGR3, I don't know what I will do. I would like the content, but the problem is if we pay them, they'll leave stuff out of the next PGR3 on purpose, just so they can sell it to you later.
Hi-MD was 1GB. Maybe you say they should have used Hi-MD, I can see that. But it was clearly not a large-market item, very few players were compatible with it.
Neither was useful to me. The size of the discs is rather large. One disc is about the size of an iPod. To carry the amount of music I wanted, it took too much space.
But I don't see how they would be open to a lawsuit.
The TV displays content input just fine.
The HD-DVD player just may refuse to output full res sometimes. It probably mentions this in the manual (oh god I hope it doesn't have a EULA!).
It's not a fault of the TV, I don't see the basis of the lawsuit.
Besides, at the time these TVs were sold, there was no such thing as an HD-DVD player. It all was OTA HD and W-VHS. So I'm not sure the user has any expectation that it will work perfectly with all future devices.
Not that I like this downrezzing crap, I just don't like exploratory lawsuits either.
Addtionally, I don't have a link for it, but sometime geothermal stations a reported to produce a constant low rumbling sound. I would have to imagine it would have to be a pretty quiet area in order to notice.
But forget that, great job getting a reference to "The Core" in there.
Journalling makes files accesses slower. The only time it speeds anything is in the error case of unsafe reboots (crashes). And I get those so rarely, I'm sure that I come out way behind on performance due to journalling.
Because there's no upfront fees, just pay per click, people wanting to host ads can switch their ad service company at any time based upon a whim or prospective income. And none of this requires the people visting the site (the eyeballs, and the real source of the money) to change their behavior one iota.
No, internet ad service has an even lower barrier to entry than search engines.
In 1999, these top-tier companies weren't making money, but you couldn't tell from their balance sheets. Have people already forgotten the accounting tricks that were utilized?
Many of these companies were showing positive EBITDA (operational profit before certain costs) at that time, because the market was just starting to demand it. Of course, it was all lies.
Google's profit is probably not lies. And even though they are completely inept with accounting and money (see their pre-IPO share registration scandal, their misstructuring of their employee stock option plans, etc.) it's also likely their profit isn't due to accounting errors either.
But it's also profit in a market with an extremely low barrier to entry, and so will require a lot of maintenance to keep that money coming to them and not their competitors.
Like SUNW was. And another company I forget. Something like 60% of the value of the DJIA was determined by tech stocks at that time. I never understood why they did that, I guess they wanted the DJIA to skyrocket like the NASDAQ was doing. But is the point of an index to skyrocket or to represent what the overall market (or economy) is doing?
Everyone took their eye off the ball back then. And here we go again.
What a strange definition.
These are processes that need to be done in order to complete another process. It doesn't mean they are parallelizable. If I build a house, I need to put up 4 walls before I can put the roof on and finish it. Does that mean building walls is a parallel operation? Not necessarily, there's no reason I can't build all 4 sequentially.
Some of the setup is the same for all pixels. The polys have to be transformed to the view position space. This is done by transform and lighthing hardware nowadays and is VERY parallelizable.
Then you have to start rendering all the polys. But it is very efficient to render adjacent pixels (and adjacent polys if using a triangle strip) at the same time. That means that it isn't efficient to render adjacent pixels in independent parallel operations.
You can do some operations in parallel, many others you cannot. And the argument that you can do pixels in parallel efficently and trivially is just way off. Primarily the argument that modern rendering is similar to ray-tracing in parallelization is way way off. Ray-tracing is massively parallelizable, you can farm out pixels over even a low-speed network in an almost trivial fashion. Scanline rendering is not the same way.
Look up papers on PixelPlanes (setting the wayback machine to 1989) to see the challenges of scanline rendering in parallel.
For example, if you need to render a triangle, transforming the coordinates and finding the u,v (for texture mapping), then calcuating the normals and interpolating them all has a lot of setup math. You don't want to do this setup math for each pixel.
In fact, unlike ray tracing, where you proceed pixel by pixel, checking all the geometry, in modern techniques you render the parts of the geometry in order into the frame buffer, and due to the magic of z-buffering, the end result frame buffer is complete for all pixels at the same time.
So pretty much what you say about pixels being independent is nearly completely false.
You can still parallelize a lot of stuff, but it isn't as simple as you say and is done using different techniques.
Application of a single scientific principle will probably not be patentable, as it would probably be obvious. Application of a couple principles would up your odds of having your patent granted (and granted usefully).
Additionally, I think you understate the level of "ownership" of a gene. You not only patent extracting and isolating the genes, but also really any kind of interaction with it. That is, if you make a drug that works by identifying and modifying operating of those genes in any way, you probably violate the original patent. It becomes like a "land grab". That is, the group that sequenced it first has an inherent claim to almost anything done with it, even if they would never have thought it.
And you get all of this just for identifying the area of the genome. You didn't invent anything, you discovered something, and just basically what the terrain looks like at that.
It's not right, in my book.
You mean keys that work when iTunes isn't the frontmost app?
I didn't know that was even possible. That explains why I didn't understand what was going on.
Is it common for applications to have this?
And they simply must take steps to ensure they cannot fulfill the request. And I don't mean Andersen shredding documents.
I mean this: if it can be done, the court may compel to you do it. So Google says "we'll keep it, but we won't do anything with it". Even if you believe them, the court may make them do something with it. So they simply can't keep it.
Same with DRM. Sony says "Yeah, a Blu-Ray disc can be made that will deactivate your player's ability to play discs, but we'd never do that." Well, they may not, but a company whose IP was breached may compel Sony to do it. Sony's only real way to avoid this is to not make it possible in the player.
Companies need to take the long view. They want to keep all their options open, but they're just going to end up making a product where the law can compel them to bone customers, and the customers will feel burned eventually.
Stop holding so much control, it's the only way forward.