Showing posts with label London. Show all posts
Showing posts with label London. Show all posts

Are Google ads costing you money?

Are Google ads costing you money?
No, this is not another Microsoft “Scroogled” campaign belying the contention of Google’s practice of paid advertisers getting the top shopping search results.

However, Microsoft’s campaign was trying to drive home a point which may prove relevant to those that do not pay attention to what they search for on the internet. Granted, Google is the search engine of choice, and that top spot is largely deserved. Like any company however, the goal is to make money, and Google, even with all its “free” stuff, makes a ton of money.

That money is made through advertising. Not just through Google Ads that appear on various web-sites, but also through search rankings, both in the shopping section, and in the general search. It is a common practice, companies pay to be at the top of the search rankings so they attract the most customers. We all know this.

However, if you are not paying attention, it might just cost you. A woman named Laura (not her real name) was in a hurry to pay London’s “congestion charge” which is a fee charged to vehicles that operate within the city’s Congestion Charge Zone. The common fee is £10 ($15) per day by the government’s official TfL (Transport for London).

Laura was in a rush, went to Google, searched for information to pay the congestion fee and clicked on the first site she saw and paid the charge, but instead of paying £10, she paid £15 ($23).  The government got its £10, but the 50% premium was pocketed by londoncongestion.com which pays Google to be a top listed search result and happened to be the site Laura selected after executing her search. The fact that londoncongestion.com makes it pretty clear at the top of its page that it is not affiliated with TfL is another story, but still relevant to paying attention in general.

TfL, to its credit, has been working with the search engines about unofficial sites, but Google has not been responsive (whereas it looks like Yahoo! and Bing have complied with the requests). The moral of the story is to pay close attention when you hit that search button on your device, whether it is linking you up with Yahoo!, Bing, Google, or anywhere, if you miss a detail, it might cost you hard earned money.  

source: The Guardian

keep up with the newest technologies and contemplate about how these will be used in the future. On this blog I'll share my thoughts about the future of technology, based on the high Tech RoadShow inventions of today. Enhanced by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Share: 

Assange: U.S. ‘Must Renounce Witch HuntAgainst WikiLeaks’

wikileaksEnglish: The logo used by WikileaksEnglish: The logo used by Wikileaks (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17woai8w42udkjpg/original.jpg

Julian Assange’s Rape Case Has Nothing to Do With Free Speech

The latest Wikileaks farce came to a head this weekend, with Julian Assange thundering from a balcony at the London Ecuadorian embassy that Obama must end the "witch hunt," against Wikileaks. That Assange is holed up in the embassy after seeking asylum in Ecuador to avoid two-year-old Swedish rape and sexual molestation accusations, not a U.S. government investigation, proved no obstacle: His supporters are now seized by one of their periodic spasms of delusional op-ed writing, blogging and tweeting in the hopes of throwing up a screen of bullshit thick enough to hide the fact that this is a very straightforward case of a dude allegedly being a sex creep—not a shadowy conspiracy against a free speech champion.

The charge is being led this time by the filmmakers Michael Moore and Oliver Stone. They argue in a Times op-ed today that Assange's Ecuadorian asylum bid is an important struggle for "global free speech" instead of a struggle by Julian Assange to not go to jail for rape. Moore has thankfully backed off of his most offensive argument, that what Assange is accused of is not really rape, as he claimed to the BBC back in December of 2010 after donating $20,000 to Assange's bail fund. (In fact one of Assange's two accusers claims Assange forcibly held her down while having sex with her; the other claims she woke to find him having sex with her without a condom.)

Moore and Stone concede that the allegations should be "thoroughly investigated"; but then argue that the attempt to extradite Assange to Sweden in order to investigate them is a secret ploy to send him to the U.S. to face trial for Wikileaks' classified diplomatic cable release. "Taken together, the British and Swedish governments' actions suggest to us that their real agenda is to get Mr. Assange to Sweden," they write.

But every one of their points in support of a dark Swedish-U.S.-U.K. conspiracy is false, having been debunked in earlier posts by New Statesman writer and lawyer David Allen Green, and the British lawyer Anya Palmer. The facts show that there is nothing more to the case than Swedish prosecutors trying to get Assange to face justice.

First: Moore and Stone toss out the old chestnut that "Sweden has not formally charged Mr. Assange with any crime." Assange hasn't even been charged, so why are the Swedes pursuing him so aggressively? It must be because the CIA has secreted Swedish lawmakers' families to black sites and won't release them until they get Assange.

But the argument that Assange "hasn't even been charged," is based on a meaningless technicality: Assange has not been formally charged because in Swedish criminal cases nobody is charged until very late in an investigation, unlike in the U.S. and Britain where charges are filed early on. Assange high-tailed it out of Sweden before the investigation reached the point of a formal charge—which is why they want him back.

The UK Supreme Court made this point in turning down Assange's request to appeal his extradition, per Anya Palmer:

"Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced.

Assange has effectively been charged, then, in the sense we think of it in the U.S and Britain.

Moore and Stone then go on to suggest that Sweden should just interview Assange in London.

Swedish authorities have traveled to other countries to conduct interrogations when needed, and the WikiLeaks founder has made clear his willingness to be questioned in London. Moreover, the Ecuadorean government made a direct offer to Sweden to allow Mr. Assange to be interviewed within Ecuador's embassy. In both instances, Sweden refused.

But Assange isn't wanted simply for an interview—he's wanted for a criminal prosecution. The Swedish prosecutor told the UK Supreme Court that she plans on filing an indictment against Assange directly after the interview, unless he says anything "which [undermines] my present view." After the likely event of charges being filed, Swedish law dictates that a trial must happen within two weeks. As Palmer writes, "It is difficult to see how this could happen if the final interview takes place in the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge."

Moore and Stone also ask why Sweden doesn't guarantee Assange won't be extradited to the U.S. Even if they did this, it would be meaningless, as David Allen Green points out:

By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law.

Finally, Moore and Stone's entire argument rests on the false premise that it's easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than from Britain "because of treaty and other considerations."

This is an easy claim to make since few people will bother to read boring treaties to see it's true. (Even the Times' opinion section editors, apparently.) But it wouldn't be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden to the U.S.: it would be harder. Treaty law says the U.S. would need permission from both the UK and Sweden if Assange were to be extradited from Sweden to the U.S., as opposed to simply the British permission they'd need when he's in England, according to David Allen Green.

And anyway, why would they need to send Assange to Sweden first, when the UK has shown it's more than willing to send criminals to the U.S?

"In reality, the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom," writes Green.

Julian Assange's sex crimes case has nothing to do with free speech, or Wikileaks. Swedish prosecutors are not handling this case differently because it's Julian Assange. In fact slavish supporters like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are the ones holding Assange to a different standard, one where it's OK to bend and break international law to aid an accused rapist's flight from justice, as long as he embarrassed the U.S. government once.

[Image via Getty]

undefined

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange portrayed himself Sunday as a victim of an American "witch hunt" over his secret-spilling website in a defiant address from the balcony of an embassy where he has holed up to avoid extradition to face sex assault allegations.

Surrounded by British police who want to detain him, Assange made no mention of the sex assault case in Sweden or how long he would remain in Ecuador's embassy in London, where he took refuge two months ago.

"I ask President Obama to do the right thing. The United States must renounce its witch hunt against WikiLeaks," Assange said. "The United States must vow that it will not seek to prosecute our staff or our supporters," he said, referring specifically to Pfc. Bradley Manning, who awaits trial in Virginia in the scandal.

The U.S. risks "dragging us all into a dark, repressive world in which journalists live under fear of prosecution," Assange said

Assange and his supporters claim the Swedish case is the first move of a Washington-orchestrated plot to make him stand trial in the U.S., which Swedish authorities dispute.

The White House declined to comment Sunday but on Saturday said Assange's fate is an issue for Sweden, Britain and Ecuador to resolve.

Assange, a 41-year-old Australian citizen, shot to international prominence in 2010 when his WikiLeaks website began publishing its huge cache of American secrets.

As he toured the globe to highlight the disclosures, two women accused him of sex offenses during a trip to Sweden. Assange has said the sex with the women was consensual and denied wrongdoing, but has fought off efforts to return him to Sweden for questioning for two years.

Ecuador's President Rafael Correa granted Assange asylum Thursday, and he remains out of reach of British authorities while he is inside the country's embassy.

Assange praised Ecuador on Sunday as "a courageous Latin American nation (that) took a stand for justice," in offering him sanctuary.

Doctor Grim Sh Awes Secret keep up with the newest technologies and contemplate about how these will be used in the future। On this blog I'll share my thoughts about the future of technology, based on the high Tech Road Show Blog inventions of today.
Enhanced by Zemanta
Share: 

Wi-Fi Hotspots Banned From 2012 Olympic Games [VIDEO]

The Olympic organization has set yet another regulation on the 2012 London games. Attendees will not be allowed to set up personal Wi-Fi or 3G hotspots for Internet use.

It may seem strict, but many question the ability for the International Olympic Committee to monitor such a policy. Since mobile phones are not banned, tethering could be a very real possibility.

This comes on the heels of several other restrictions put into place during the games, including a ban on broadcasting or publishing Olympic video, sound or images on social networks or the "general Internet."

Watch the video… Continue reading...

keep up with the newest technologies and contemplate about how these will be used in the future. On this blog I'll share my thoughts about the future of technology, based on the high Tech Road Show Blog inventions of today.
Enhanced by Zemanta
Share: 

Nokia Shows Off Flexible Mobile Device of the Future





Look what Nokia has done with this mobile gadget — Nokia calls it a “kinetic device,” a prototype with a flexible display the company showed at Nokia World 2011 in London.
Instead of the pinch-to-zoom capabilities copied throughout the smartphone industry, Nokia has come up with a novel way to accomplish the same thing: When you bend and twist this handset, the image on its screen does your bidding in a highly intuitive way.
One of the advantages Nokia touts for such a device is the ability to use it without looking at it — for instance, twisting it in your pocket to dismiss a call or change song on a music player.
How does it work? According to CNET, a Nokia demonstrator said the company was experimenting with bundles of carbon nanotubes whose electrical properties change when they’re stretched. Those nanotubes are embedded in a flexible substance that allows the device to control the screen when twisted and bent. An additional advantage: The device is much tougher — and is water resistant, too.
http://www.turksa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/nokiamorph1.jpgWe’ve heard of displays that might be capable of folding like a newspaper and rolled up like a tube, but the idea of controlling by bending is different. Imagine the possibilities: Perhaps it could be used by blind people, where the bending properties of the device would not require vision to intuitively control a smartphone.
When will we see such a thing in the real world? Nokia’s not saying precisely when its kinetic device will be released, but one rep tells IntoMobile in the video embedded below, “hopefully soon.”





More About: Flexible display, future tech, Kinetic Device, Nokia
Enhanced by Zemanta
Share: 

Nokia N8 vs. iPhone 4: camera showdown

What's the first thing you should do when you get the N8? Considering it packs the biggest image sensor embedded in a phone yet, Carl Zeiss optics, and an eight-digit pixel count, it seemed obvious to us that the answer was to take it on a picture- and video-taking stroll around London. On our way out we saw our iPhone 4 looking all sad and lonely, so we went ahead and brought it along as well. Below you shall find one gallery of pure, unadulterated N8 sample shots, another interspersed with the iPhone's results for comparison's sake, and a final one with side-by-side 100 percent crops from each image taker. Once you've digested all of those, we suggest hopping past the break and tucking into some tasty video comparisons for dessert. Naturally, all the images are entirely unretouched (but for our masterly watermarking) and the iPhone 4's HDR hocus pocus has been left off. We've also provided a zip file containing all the full-res imagery shot with the N8 in a link below. A quick note is also merited about the N8's resolution. The sensor's display ratio is 4:3, which means that full 12 megapixel shots are only available in those dimensions. The camera software, however, defaults to shooting 9 megapixel snaps at the increasingly popular 16:9 ratio -- this is done simply by cropping away the "excess" bars at the top and bottom of the image, meaning that the 9 megapixel images are giving us identical performance as the 12 megapixel ones, they're just chopped down (from 4000 x 3000 to 4000 x 2248) for the sake of convenience. Now, on with the show!

Gallery: Nokia N8 sample photos

Gallery: Nokia N8 vs. iPhone 4: cameraphone fight!

Gallery: Nokia N8 vs. iPhone 4: full resolution crops

Continue reading Nokia N8 vs. iPhone 4: camera showdown

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share: