They cannot prevent Google from doing this. While they do comply with the Robots Exclusion Protocol, if they see that it is being abused only to inflict commercial damage to them, they might just decide to ignore it.
They would be instantly charged with copyright infringement; there is legal precedent for this (can't be bothered to look it up though).
Google could probably sue the whole lot of them for collusion if they do try to do this.
I wonder if this is true. It sounds like Murdoch is wary of something like this transpiring - if the OP is correct about his plan, which does make sense of his otherwise insane-seeming statements. But what law precisely could apply to this? The papers wouldn't be forming a cartel, just agreeing on a new business practise for their sector.
Google already gives publishers a way out of caching pages. It's in their own best interests to take advantage of the capabilities the googlebot gives them.
So it would seem. robots.txt gives site owners the ability to exclude specific bots by name. If they all excluded just the googlebot, Google would have to obey or be slapped with an infringement suit, though they might then have a case for anti-competitive practises. But if each news site only allowed through one specific bot, with which they had a business agreement, I can't see they'd be breaking any law.
Oi! I read newspapers and am still in the prime of my life, you insensitive clod. I also have more disposable income than I ever did, and it will likely increase when my kids start to leave home.
I'd be mightily surprised if they had the legal and PR foolhardiness to actually deliberately brick devices.
I agree. I hate Apple with a degree of fiery vengeance usually reserved for the eighth circle of hell (since the ninth is the icy one) but I suspect they simply didn't consider the effect of the update on jailbroken phones while they were developing it. They even issued a warning a few days beforehand, IIRC, that the update might brick jailbroken phones.
If you monkey with a device's firmware, you should expect future updates to screw things up.
Windows 7 is very Vista-like, but with the benefit of: 1) Two years to get application writers used to the Vista/7 model, and the headaches associated with it. 2) More driver support from vendors 3) Hardware that's two years newer 4) More customizable UAC (if you have it enabled).
I would add:
5) Much faster (haven't felt the need to disable Aero as I did when I was running Vista on the same machine) 6) Nice, and actually useful, new taskbar
I know where you're coming from. I held off for several months for precisely that reason, but after reading several reports from people who'd actually done the upgrade (to the RC; can't speak for the RTM though one would hope it isn't worse) I decided to take the plunge. I have yet to hear one story of someone who tried to upgrade and got hosed.
Really, what do you guys run that causes all these problems?
They haven't even tried it. They probably had difficulties updating Window 3.1 to 95 or something and have just extrapolated. My upgrade experience, like yours, was smooth.
As I understand it, Win7 by design uses pretty much the same APIs as Vista. There are a few known incompatibilities, and the installer warns you about these before you upgrade. My experience of upgrading from Vista SP2 to Win7 RC was that I was advised to remove three apps before upgrading (can't remember what they were; it's possible that one may have been an Apple product). I did this, and the install was painfully slow but otherwise worked perfectly. I was then able to reinstall the latest version of the incompatible apps.
It bugs me that people are advising against upgrading who clearly haven't tried it. Of course it might go wrong. So backup your files before trying it. If it works, you've saved yourself a lot of effort.
In Australia it is a criminal act for companies to monitor telecommunications for any reason other than strictly limited checking of quality of service, not to be recorded and, not to be censored.
So, if the thing they're being accused of turns out actually to be a crime, iiNet are screwed (along with every other Australian ISP).
Slashdot Mirror
If they can't appreciate Sonic Youth I don't want to know them.
They cannot prevent Google from doing this. While they do comply with the Robots Exclusion Protocol, if they see that it is being abused only to inflict commercial damage to them, they might just decide to ignore it.
They would be instantly charged with copyright infringement; there is legal precedent for this (can't be bothered to look it up though).
I thought they were orders to save a Vogon's grandmother.
Google could probably sue the whole lot of them for collusion if they do try to do this.
I wonder if this is true. It sounds like Murdoch is wary of something like this transpiring - if the OP is correct about his plan, which does make sense of his otherwise insane-seeming statements. But what law precisely could apply to this? The papers wouldn't be forming a cartel, just agreeing on a new business practise for their sector.
Google already gives publishers a way out of caching pages. It's in their own best interests to take advantage of the capabilities the googlebot gives them.
So it would seem. robots.txt gives site owners the ability to exclude specific bots by name. If they all excluded just the googlebot, Google would have to obey or be slapped with an infringement suit, though they might then have a case for anti-competitive practises. But if each news site only allowed through one specific bot, with which they had a business agreement, I can't see they'd be breaking any law.
For stuff I didn't know I needed to know I use Reddit.
Oi! I read newspapers and am still in the prime of my life, you insensitive clod. I also have more disposable income than I ever did, and it will likely increase when my kids start to leave home.
Doesn't mean I am swayed by advertising, though.
If you're right, then we probably have better informed 20 year-olds than 10 years ago. Then again, everyone is better informed now.
And I demand that I am Vroomfondel.
We should all give up relinquishing.
I'd be mightily surprised if they had the legal and PR foolhardiness to actually deliberately brick devices.
I agree. I hate Apple with a degree of fiery vengeance usually reserved for the eighth circle of hell (since the ninth is the icy one) but I suspect they simply didn't consider the effect of the update on jailbroken phones while they were developing it. They even issued a warning a few days beforehand, IIRC, that the update might brick jailbroken phones.
If you monkey with a device's firmware, you should expect future updates to screw things up.
Chrome doesn't seem to have a problem doing this (on Windows).
...such as the zip utility built into Windows Explorer itself.
On a lighter note, Doctor Who is on again soon.
We don't need a wall; we have seas.
Just cut the government off.
Unfortunately, most in the UK government probably think of themselves as moderates.
In any case I think the chances of an html 5 video implementation that works on all five major browsers is pretty remote.
If by "remote" you mean a year or two away, then you are correct.
Because as we all know there weren't any female neanderthals.
Windows 7 is very Vista-like, but with the benefit of:
1) Two years to get application writers used to the Vista/7 model, and the headaches associated with it.
2) More driver support from vendors
3) Hardware that's two years newer
4) More customizable UAC (if you have it enabled).
I would add:
5) Much faster (haven't felt the need to disable Aero as I did when I was running Vista on the same machine)
6) Nice, and actually useful, new taskbar
I know where you're coming from. I held off for several months for precisely that reason, but after reading several reports from people who'd actually done the upgrade (to the RC; can't speak for the RTM though one would hope it isn't worse) I decided to take the plunge. I have yet to hear one story of someone who tried to upgrade and got hosed.
Really, what do you guys run that causes all these problems?
They haven't even tried it. They probably had difficulties updating Window 3.1 to 95 or something and have just extrapolated. My upgrade experience, like yours, was smooth.
As I understand it, Win7 by design uses pretty much the same APIs as Vista. There are a few known incompatibilities, and the installer warns you about these before you upgrade. My experience of upgrading from Vista SP2 to Win7 RC was that I was advised to remove three apps before upgrading (can't remember what they were; it's possible that one may have been an Apple product). I did this, and the install was painfully slow but otherwise worked perfectly. I was then able to reinstall the latest version of the incompatible apps.
It bugs me that people are advising against upgrading who clearly haven't tried it. Of course it might go wrong. So backup your files before trying it. If it works, you've saved yourself a lot of effort.
In Australia it is a criminal act for companies to monitor telecommunications for any reason other than strictly limited checking of quality of service, not to be recorded and, not to be censored.
So, if the thing they're being accused of turns out actually to be a crime, iiNet are screwed (along with every other Australian ISP).
Apart from (maybe) shortening the life of all their memory DIMMs.
Oh wait, isn't that bascially what the RIAA has been doing?
With the help of the Pirate Bay, since the Pirate Bay likes to insert a sample of random ip addresses into its tracker/logs.
[Citation needed]