By accident, one of the el-cheapo motherboards I used about 6 years ago ran with MAC 00:00:00:00:00:00. Interestingly, this wasn’t a problem — I could still communicate with my router and didn’t even notice this for a long time. But then I tried to communicate with my father’s IRIX machine, and we couldn’t get it to work. Until we realized the misconfiguration :).
Perhaps a lot of brute-force try-them-all routines skip the all zeros option, and others consider an all zeros result to be invalid (internally mapped to a "no match" result or so forth). A truer security through obscurity idea I can't imagine though so if that is the case "arguably more secure" is very arguable!
There's no malice in this unless Greenpeace tells their followers to spam and/or clog them which this Union explicitly did. "When the Union ignored his request, the company filed suit for, among other things, a violation of the CFAA for “knowingly caus[ing] the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally caus[ing] damage without authorization, to a protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A). "
Your statement of Greenpeace is disingenuous and bordering on slant.
If you can take a minute to watch our video i would highly appreciate it, maybe at that point, advice can be a bit more relative. Our iphone app lets users leave photos, videos, messages and more inside what we term living bubbles at any location. When they leave, their bubbles remain behind for others to discover. Bubbles can be cloned, modified, stored, carried, or moved elsewhere. These bubbles grow, divide, multiply and spread with interaction and shrivel and shrink with negligence. Basically, popular bubbles prosper and spread and unpopular bubbles pop and die. So these bubbles basically evolve. Now we started creating content and we have a drop tool that enables us to leave content at different locations on a map using the google maps api. But is that a good idea? Should we just create a bubble or two in everyone's bag that they find once they download the app? I hope that's a bit more specific to get some help on the topic. We just applied to TC startup battlefield in San Francisco and we're hoping that the event will give us somewhat of a boost!
>Think about that—somewhere in Mountain View, someone’s tweaking the little number you see in the Google toolbar. By hand. How accurate is that gonna be?
Certainly more accurate than software failure. Here's the relevant snippet from the source to this claim:
>We have a few safety checks in place, so we say like `OH! Did we expect the page rank of MSN.com to be 7 or 8 and then suddenly dropped to 2...'
>If those sorts of things happen, then we might get an email and check into it. But for the most part the process runs with very little human intervention. People don't really need to oversee things.
The author doesn't show much comprehension of PageRank which is not intended to be a metric solely used for "site ranking" but for crawling rate amongst other things. It's common for lower PR pages to outrank higher PR pages in Google's search results let it be no secret.
Can someone remind me the point of this article because it feels like I completely missed it.
I know plenty about PageRank, honest. The problem is that Toolbar PageRank has almost zero resemblance to true PageRank. Google isn't using toolbar PR to determine crawling, crawl budget or anything else. And even Google's team says the toolbar data is a bad metric. They only keep it because they know a lot of SEOs would start crying if they got rid of it.
I find it is also likely that short URLs (especially in the case of a directory-type site) are seen first by the spider and that this order is respected by the crawler (FIFO).
You can also ask in #seo on irc.freenode.net I know there are knowledgable SEO people in there who might be able to provide you with a decent answer.
click