Inside Webmaster Tools is “Fetch” tool. It allows you to submit any page to Google. You can then also have Google index the page. When you fetch a time stamp is recorded and a full HTML copy of the page too.
I am not sure if Google uses this to prove which is the original copy. Most website owners don’t know this exists. So it’s hard to use it as proof of the original, because the original creator may not even use the tool.
However, if everyone started to submit key articles, then it theoretically could compare the two fetches and decide which is earlier. It could be automated too with sitemap uploads as you post content.
Moreover, you could then use this as evidence in a DMCA take down that your copy is the earliest. Anyways, there are ways to prove earliest content.
That's my point. There is no way to verify the date assertion of an arbitrary page.
The problem is akin to standing in a crowd where some people hold a sign with their age on it and others do not hold a sign, then trying to verify the age of an arbitrary people.
You can prove in many ways that your content existed at a given time. But it seems quite impossible to prove that a copy of it didn't exist earlier somewhere else.
edit: unless the content itself contains a proof like the latest block hash or something like that, but that could be edited
Yes, this appears to be the date google shows next to the search results.
Every time I write a blog post, I submit manually via webmaster tools "Fetch as Google" so that it gets indexed immediately. That way, the date google shows matches the date I published the article.
This is why I stopped practicing law and started my own web design company where I could set my own schedule. We strive to work 35 hour weeks and usually come in around 35 to 40 per week. Burnout will happen at higher numbers.
I believe it was because they were going to be flying through a war zone and did not want the US and Pan Am insignia on the planes. Of course, it actually helped them when they flew into the Dutch port as the Dutch flighters saw the US flag and backed off.
We just had a clients website copied (a law firm no less). We filed a DMCA notice and the site was down within a day. It's a very powerful tool if your work has been copied, so long as the infringing site is in the US (our owned by a US hosting company).
It's a powerful tool if you are a law firm and your work is not very valuable, otherwise you will receive fake counter-notification from scammer and Google will ask you for court order.
I did not know this existed until recently, but you and the article poster probably have a very good claim for diminished value and loss of use. Basically non use of your high-end car for many months.
I recently created a short online quiz for a law firm in Florida that checks to see if you have a claim. It was a completely new area of law that I did not even know about. It does email your contact info at the end - in case you want to be contacted.
I prefer sites not to validate fields they have no need for programmatic use of.
Every validation has a few users who don't pass. Names longer than expected, people with no surname, phone numbers with an "extension" code, addresses with no house number, email addresses xyz+2@8.8.8.8, etc.
Validate only what you need to to make your service work, and when you do, use an official validation library rather than baking your own.
Keep in mind it was NOT an all or nothing proposition for using the Shuttle. We launched satellites while the shuttle was running using Titan, Atlas, and Delta rockets. I would imagine if it was more cost efficient to use those rockets, they would have done so.
We are definitely peak NFL for several reasons:
1. Head trauma. People watching now actively know about it and it turns some people off. Those who don't care about players getting injured, then gripe the game is being changed. So the NFL is caught in the middle of losing fans for putting out a rather barbaric sport of causing head trauma against those who think they are making the game worse.
2. Stadiums. Owners simply were greedy and pushed to far. This turned off various fans and groups.
3. Kids. A lot of parents don't want their kids playing. So that will have an impact not on the player pool, but those who will watch and live the sport later.
4. Time. Games are way to long. It's 3+ hours for 10 minutes of action. Seriously, Comcast edits all games and you can watch them a few days later. They take 8 to 10 minutes to watch all plays. You lose the anticipation, but still too many timeouts and stoppages.
5. Watching patterns. Many people, escpecially those under 30, don't watch tv for 3 hours in a row. They are doing multiple things. They want bite size content. NFL simply does not fit into that currently, unless you have the red zone package. That is the only way I can watch football now, unless my home team is playing (Dolphins). Even for the I watch flip back and forth and do other things.
6. Costs. It is ridiculously priced to go to a real game. Parking is $25 to $40. Tickets are $100 each for decent seats. Food is 4x what is actually costs. Just crazy. Plus I don't have a full day to kill, to drive, park, wait, and watch the game. Easier to turn on at home. Unless it's a big game or playoffs, live NFL is not worth it at all.
2015 and 2015 they suspended having blackouts. The NFL will re-evaluate the rule after going through the season. The blackout policy was instituted in the early 1970s when NFL teams relied primarily on ticket sales to generate revenue. The rule stated that if a game wasn't sold out 72 hours prior to kickoff, they would be blacked out in the local TV markets. It sucked. If your favorite team was bad that year, you ended up being blacked out as no one attended the game. Sure I was a fan of the Dolphins, but I am not going to spend $100+ to watch a 1-16 or 6-10 team some years. I would watch at home in the background.
Let's say driverless cars happen in the next five to ten years. I see two scenarios happening - neither do I need uber. First scenario is my local car at my house becomes driverless. I can simply call my car to pick me up from anywhere. It can return home and wait (or go and pick up others as it's own on demand taxi). I now don't need uber at all - even though I use them now. So that is not a good scenario.
Second scenario is I am traveling and need a car/taxi as my local car is at home. If so, why would not other people in that city simply allow for their cars to pick me up while they are not in use. Every driverless car is now a taxi.
Basically all that is needed is an app and some service where owners subscribe and let their cars be used as a taxi. Perhaps uber controls the app and service as the dominant leader. But I bet there will be a lot of competition in that area with car rental companies, manufacturers, local cab companies, individuals and uber all competing.
I suppose the third scenario is that many people do not own a car in the future and we just subscribe to a car service. Perhaps in that area uber is the choice. But perhaps the manuacturers roll their own service too that you subscribe for a time share of a car.
Or could you actually get rid of your own car and ride only on Uber? Due to it's scale, Uber might be able to offer competitive pricing.
If there is no driver involved the cost structure for you and Uber is pretty much the same. Except Uber can probably negotiate better deals on new cars and service (due to volume) and also achieve higher utilization. On the other hand, Uber of course needs to make a profit.
I've done exactly this. I live in a city with ok, but not great, public transit. When we started having constant issues with our metro, I started taking Uber to and from work.
It's more expensive than the train, but cheaper than buying a car, paying operating expenses, paying for parking at my apartment and paying for parking at work by a dramatic amount.
For longer uses or multi-stop errands, I grab a Car2Go or a Zipcar. For whole-day trips or longer, I head to National where I can pick any car from the Aisle for around $50/day.
> Uber can probably negotiate better deals on new cars and service (due to volume)
Same argument could be applied to car rental businesses (some of which are owned by automakers which makes the relationship super-cozy), yet I've never seen a deal from Avis or Hertz to make it a worthwhile replacement to owning.
Big cities have an added cost of parking and extra miles driven to find a gas station or a public charger. But big cities also have low-cost public transportation (or so I've heard, I live in LA).
I actually find the cost of renting cars makes a decent amount of sense for me, given how infrequently I use them. However, it's such a hassle, since I've got to go quite out of the way to where they're kept and I can only return them at inconvenient times (or I have to rent for two days because they're not open at the weekend, for example).
Being able to book one to use for a journey then let it go home would be great.
Important to note that currently it's the Uber and Lyft drivers that are subsidizing the cost of getting the car to you - they are not getting paid for the miles driven. Whether or not this cost will be subsidized by Uber/Lyft in the future remains to be seen.
>> the third scenario is that many people do not own a car in the future and we just subscribe to a car service
I have a feeling this is whats going to happen. People bought records, now they subscribe to Spotify.
Question is who will make money? Spotify does not, because labels have monopoly rights.
I cannot see a scenario where Uber is the winner here. Unlike record companies, there is competition between car companies, but still Uber has no entrenched position here to make a lot of money as far ad I can see.
> I see two scenarios happening - neither do I need uber
You'd need Uber or another Uber-like alternative.
Scenario one requires that you make a massive investment in purchasing your own car - while using Uber's will be cheaper unless you're using cars all day long.
Scenario two requires an app for the coordination/hailing. That's where Uber would come in.
We always have had a surplus of logos. When we design for a company, perhaps 3 to 5 decent ideas are sketched. Of course only one makes the final cut per client. We own any preliminary work, so we can offer these for use later. We would just change the name,
revise slightly and change the color. Bam...new logo.
What we did finally was revise the ones we like (25 to 50 initially) and include them for free as part of a new web design project. A lot of clients have bad logos that can ruin a design. So it helps our designs and clients brands.
Clients could also purchase at a low flat rate if they liked one without a website. This has worked well too.
I am not sure if Google uses this to prove which is the original copy. Most website owners don’t know this exists. So it’s hard to use it as proof of the original, because the original creator may not even use the tool.
However, if everyone started to submit key articles, then it theoretically could compare the two fetches and decide which is earlier. It could be automated too with sitemap uploads as you post content.
Moreover, you could then use this as evidence in a DMCA take down that your copy is the earliest. Anyways, there are ways to prove earliest content.