LQ Suggestions & FeedbackDo you have a suggestion for this site or an idea that will make the site better? This forum is for you.
PLEASE READ THIS FORUM - Information and status updates will also be posted here.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Google couldn't give a rat's patootie about the content of their banner ads unless they were lewd or vulgar. Those banner ads are worth money to them, which keeps that search engine up and running for us to use.
Just think of it this way: Microsoft is *PAYING* a dang lot of money (banner ads on Google don't come cheap) to get people to read an article that they can't honestly think people will believe anyway.
As far as the truth in advertising bit goes; as soon as I finish typing this I am going straight to the grocery store to buy some beer so that I can be like those guys I see on TV commercials. I smoked for 10 years and I still look like the Marlboro Man, so I think its time for a change.
Thats where it sends me, but I'm from canada so it may be different for you.
Linux cost me a grand total of $40 because I preferred to order disks rather than download the program and burn it to CD. Otherwise, it would have cost me the minimal price tag for blank CD-R's.
How this is MORE expensive than XP, which costs several hundred retail, plus the pricey proprietary firewalls and antiviruses, I'm not sure. Maybe it's new math.
Can the admins kindly talk to somebody at Google and mention the words, "Truth in Advertising"?
This has allready been brought up, the threads in the general forum. And besides, read the article, it is talking about networked things and whatnot, not individual users.
Besides, Google is not responsible for the advertising, it is paid to put a message up regardless to what it says. They are in no way resposible for the truthfullness of the ads, that is the company who pays who is responsible.
Actually squall, one part was legitimate considering Jeremy HAD said he was going to stop that particular ad, and it is still there. However, the arguing about it is not really suited, IMHO, for the suggestions forum. But nevertheless there was a suggestion involved.