__/ [Who Turned Off The Lights?] on Tuesday 14 February 2006 08:18 \__
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:45:21 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [Who Turned Off The Lights?] on Tuesday 14 February 2006 07:10 \__
>>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:33:54 -0800, Ed Jay wrote:
>>>> __/ [Tony] on Tuesday 14 February 2006 03:06 \__
>>>>> needin4mation@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> It seems, especially in this NG, to mean any message containing even a
>>>> modicum of commercial content that someone doesn't want to see. That
>>>> gets reported as spam.
>>> Too bad the real world can't keep me from being bombarded by commercial
>>> content I'd rather not see on the highway, on TV, on the radio and yes,
>>> even on Yahoo and MSN which in one way or another MIGHT further explain
>>> Google's success (which as of this writing had only 134 characters incl.
>>> spaces on their homepage compared with over 3,000 for MSN and 3,000 for
>>> Yahoo.) Simplicity may very well have been Goog's calling card.
>> If you thought /that/ was bad, lookie here (breaking news):
>> "Microsoft's new OS Vista "Welcome Center" screen, seen by all PC users
>> when they start their computers, will display ads. Because that practice
>> has caused complaints, the company is facing trouble from the U.S.
>> Department of Justice as well as states attorneys general who are
>> considering legal action. A report was filed last Wednesday with the judge
>> handling Microsoft's antitrust compliance."
> Hmmm, could it be Microsoft's dire and tired attempts at catching up with
> Google's treasure-troves of advertising translated into mega-money?
> Naaaaah, I say it's Good 'Ole Bill's inability to get a woody unless
> someone whispers "antitrust" and "class action suit" in his ear every other
Well, in this particular circumstance, I couldn't care less about the
/impact/ of the strategy. My intent, nonetheless, is to give people another
yet illustration of how Microsoft misuses the desktop monopoly. Let reality
drive them away.
I never log into Windows machines, so the move above affects me not. This is
by all means different from moves that break crossover applications and
cripple communication (both formats and protocols) with Open Source
appliances, which often reside in the same enivironment or server room.
Colleagues and friends who still use Windows will simply be penalised through
forced propaganda and unwanted logon delays. I sometimes think of Internet
Explorer and the poor state of Windows security as collective punishment,
which I try hard not to let myself be bothered by. It puts many Open Source
advocates in a position of considerable advantage.
>>>> That's as deceitful of putting one's competitor's name in an alt tag.
>>> Anyone recall "Miracle on 34th Street"? wherein Macy's sent everyone to
>>> their competitors? I do it all the time (without the rel="nofollow").
>>> Hmmmm, what if i was to begin to include their names and such within my
>>> alt tags. How much trouble could I get in? Not that I'm encouraging any
>>> of this...but just for the sake of argument. What would the aftermath be?
>>> Litigation? Copyright infringement?
>> Mentioning of names has always been a grey area, especially when the Web
>> expanded to have personal homepages and blogs. Plus, then came higher
>> crawling capacity and indexing now accounts well for word proximity. Same
>> arguments can be made for names of businesses, which have a 'face'/image,
>> just like individuals. See the following, which relates to your point
>> rather well.
>> "The company behind US cash-advance firm Check ?n Go has sued Google for
>> selling its trademarks as keywords in search advertising, according to the
>> Cincinnati Enquirer. Such sales do not breach Google?s own policy for the
>> US and Canada."
>> So, people want to control SEPR's which relate to their names and the
>> public gateway to many potential customer.
> Yup, if or when I ever promote anyone its usually out of the hope of "Fame
> by association" or because I'm honestly trying to be the bigger man which
> in turn comes full circle as well and Something which usually works to some
> extent. But this, If I've read it correctly is 'way out there' in my
> opinion. The cases themselve can be tricky to understand and almost
> something out of an Abbot and Costello routine....Am I reading it correctly
Yes, you extended my trail of thought. Looking at referral logs can be
intersting sometimes. For example, I can tell friends and acquaintants of
mine how many people are searching their name on the Web AND (logical AND)
read about them on my site.
> Funny, we're back at square one, you and I Roy. Which is the lesser of the
> two evils at the point? Google or MSN?
Google's 'crimes' are fewer, but their history is shorter. I suggest you read
the following at your leisure time:
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: sheep outnumber people in NZ
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
9:55am up 28 days 4:56, 13 users, load average: 1.24, 0.98, 0.86
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms