The problem is that Newspapers don't want Google news to link to specific pages, but the want the "normal" Google to link to their main page, and Google said they can't have both.

Nor should they have both. It comes down to news papers not figuring out a business model that works and thus are trying everything to keep relevant and remain in control.

I played EQ for a while and I never acheived an uber level--traveling was still risky for me. I could buff up and avoid the worst of it, but yeah, getting from here to there was often a difficult choice. For the areas where I felt no risk traveling through, those were short.

I think what would make sense is to base a teleport on the players level, the area level, and distance. If you are at a high enough level that the area doesn't pose much risk, then let them transport over it, especially if you have to go from one place to another through easy levels. It makes the game play better for high level players and gives an extra benefit for long term play.

Disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with Doctrow's position, but I also have looked into it very deeply, either.

His claim, however, is that Google settled with the Authors Guild to pay a one time fee to authors if their books are indexed. I know this because my wife, who is a novelist, filled out the form for her publisher. The settlement was going to be quite small. Anyway, Doctrow's position is that Google, being a big honking company with deep profits negotiated with the Authors Guild to Google benefit *because* it was cheaper and IMHO, not Doctrow's, better PR. The Authors Guild, on the other hand, was not funded enough for a prolonged legal battle, so too the settelment. The Guild gets some press.

Now lets say you have an innovative idea to do something with book text. Maybe it falls into "Fair Use", maybe not. You haven't thought of that because your spending time developing your idea. So you build a service and start indexing books. Uh oh, the Authors Guild gets their dander up and gets their lawyers on your ass. Your start-up company is in a vastly different position than Google. You don't have deep pockets and you don't have market power to throw around, nor are probably going to be able to fund a prolonged legal battle which you may or may not win. In Doctrow's view, you won't be able to negotiate a favorable settlement and you will close up shop. Thus, you and your innovative idea are stifled.

Here is what he is talking about:

• Copyrighted material (books, music, video, etc) is distributed by a relatively few number of distributors
• The distributors etc are the gatekeepers to copyrighted material both directly by only buying the things that they think they can sell and indirectly becuase if they don't buy something, the producers and publishers will stop producing said stuff.
• In some cases,Walmart, etc, the retail outlets have asked, and received, modified content
• In some cases, upstarts have thumbed their noses at the incumbents (record companies to sheet mnusic, radio to record companies, internet radio to over the air radio, Apply iTunes to record companies, etc) continued to take what they wanted and let congress decide,often in their favor. This usually included some negotiated licensing fee.
• The distributors and search engines have raised, or attempt to raise, the barrier to entry into retailing and content distribution to effectively lock out competition.

These things, Doctrow, says combined has led to a stifled market. I don't know if I agree, since each evolution has been innovative and I hope Doctrow isn't making the claim that Google et al are going to be the last and final stage.

Unfortunately, Doctrow isn't an economist or a social researcher, he is an author and blogger of some repute. That doesn't give him the innate ability to investigate the market and social dynamics taking place.

I like my Treo 700P, but I hate the keyboard. The rounded buttons are hard to hit authoritatively. I find I have to use the edge of my thumb. I much prefer flatter or even cupped keys like the Blackbarry (earlier ones).

I've never personally come across anyone who's bought a Mac or iPod/iPhone because of the supposed "cool" factor.

I certainly wouldn't expect people who buy stuff for the cool factor would either admit it or even are aware of it. But I bet if you spent some time talking to them about why they bought an iPhone, or any hot gadget for that matter, you could discern whether they bought the device for primarily practical reasons. I'd even go so far as to say in my unqualifed opinion, the most of the people who stood in-line for hours after the iPhone release where motivated by the cool factor.

And I am not an iPhone hater. I think it is great technology and if they were weren't ATT exclusive and if Apple wasn't so draconian in locking the damn thing down, I might get one for myself. I find that fact that I have to jailbreak and violate the ToS appalling. Hell, I even tried to talk my sister into one because she would benefit from the ease of use and applications.

Devices similar to it have been around quite a bit longer than first-generation iPhones. Just like most any palm, they've never been cool, though. So even if Palm would've gotten out a TX cell, it's extremely unprobable that this would've changed anything. They might've gotten a few percentage points out of RIM's market share. Maybe some of Microsoft's. But an Apple product's hype isn't based on features, or the price, or the design. It's marketing coupled with hordes of rabid fanboys.

Much applause. Very well said.

The parent is not flamebait. You may not agree with the opinion, but the poster is making a reasoned argument. If you can't understand that, you need to turn in your mod points.