As a test model, I asked LlamaCoder to "Build me an app for generating characters for the Dungeons and Dragons TTRPG, using the the third edition ruleset." Here's what happened.
I assume this statement means that the advertiser's site does not appear organically on the first page of search results. Thus, buying paid placement on the first page only produces one listing on the first page (the ad) rather than two or more (the ad and the organic search result).
Far be it from me to impugn the credibility of researchers I don't know, but I have to think there's at least some confirmation bias at work when Google concludes that giving Google money for paid ads is a good thing.
Related question from a different perspective: HOW DO I MAKE MY CEO TAKE SOME TIME OFF?
I'm not a confounder, but the CEO-founder is a friend and hired me on as soon as he cleared his A-round funding. (We've been confounders before on a project that flopped and he knew I wasn't in the risk position to be a dayjob-quitting early employee this time.) He's a serious workaholic -- claims to enjoy being so -- and the company is doing very well. That said, he's CLEARLY burning out.
He's talked for the last year about taking some time off, but between the birth of a new child, fundraising, strategic partnerships and the continued burden of success, his "week in Florida" kept being pushed off, shrunk to "three days in Florida" to "a day off" to "I'll take some time after this next funding round. Maybe."
Setting aside the fact that he's my CEO (and a ragged chief exec is bad for everybody), he's also a friend. I don't want to see him burn out. This will almost certainly NOT be the last company we work on together, and I'd like to see him survive -- mind, body, marriage and social circle intact -- past our current endeavor.
So, again, how do I convince my workaholic CEO to take some time off?
Taking a day off is much harder than doing something in particular that's fun. I rarely "take a day off" -- frankly, it's boring. But doing something in particular is much easier. He's your friend, so you probably know what he likes -- suggest something. An all-day hike, paintball, star-trek marathon, you could even toss around romantic ideas he could do with his wife. Give him something specific to do that's compelling, and I bet he'll be more likely to do it than "take time off."
Curated by Theresa Neilsen Hayden, who at one time modded comments at BoingBoing. As a former forum mod myself, I can attest that there are LOTs of great crowd-hacking insights here.
There's a legal principle call Forum Non Conveniens that is supposed to remedy this, though I don't know if anyone has challenged these seizures on those grounds. Basically, a legal matter is supposed to be tried in the most relevant and appropriate jurisdiction. For example, you sue a corporation in the state where it violated civil law, rather than state where it's headquartered. I shouldn't have to fly to Dallas to sue Pizza Hut if my local franchise poisoned me.
That said, the Internet breaks down a lot of established jurisdictional law because a website can operate effectively anywhere the Internet exists, and as such can theoretically be subject to the laws of any web-connected jurisdiction. These seizures are just another example of how the law has not caught up to the basic operating procedures of the web.
There is a certain legal philosophy that says the Internet is operating under its own version of Maritime Law, which is to say its a non-national zone where the law is defined by consensus practice and then ratified by bordering or participating jurisdictions. International salvage rights emerged from common maritime practice, and are now generally recognized as legally binding.
That's in theory a good model for the web, but I'm very certain the US Government doesn't see it that way.
The US constitution also grants a right to a jury trial in "all suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars".
All US judicial authority derives from the constitution. Given a controversy under the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, a trial cannot be denied the agreeved party unless:
1. There is no controversy
2. There is a stipulation in the constitution, or the jurisdictional laws passed by congress, that says federal jurisdiction doesn't exist.
3. There is a valid treaty which specifies a different process
4. The case was already tried.
5. Neither party is subject to the laws of the US.
Absent those conditions the US courts would have to take the case.
Forum selection conventions must still conform to the constitution.
If you wanted to change this you would need to convince Congress to pass a law changing enforcement of copyright.
This isn't a suit at common law, though, this is a seizure by government officials. The courts have generally held that those only have to allow you a chance to legally contest it after the fact.
I really doubt forum non conveniens can be applied here. The website allegedly broke US law on US soil. Furthermore, it seems that the plaintiff is the US government itself. It would certainly be more inconvenient (or probably even impossible) for US law enforcement to sue a canadian company in canada.
This article does not mention it at all, but Bodog.com was accepting online payments from residents of Maryland. That is how a MD state court was able to establish jurisdiction. Once that was done, they were able to take action against Verisign, a U.S.-based company.
1) Self-reported happiness is an EXTREMELY unreliable indicator, as the social pressure to "seem happy" is very real and very different by culture, class and educational level
2) Happiness and income are relational in that we've seen over and over again people are most happy not by being objectively "rich" but simply objectively richer than their peer group. "Poor" countries with a growing middle class see themselves as having -- or at least with the potential to have -- more than the median material wealth of their peer group. "rich" countries with shrinking middle classes have the opposite expectation.
I don't in general disagree, except to say that the consumerization of IT departments means that enterprises are using consumer-oriented stuff, so you get the best of both headaches these days.
And if you think the neterprise is bad, just try selling into the government channel. Jeebus frak, those guys are hideously cheap and supremely demanding. If it weren't for scandalously longterm lock-in due to high switching costs -- when everything is reviewed forever, almost nothing ever changes, including product selections -- no one would sell to the public sector EVER.
