There's been some suggestions that the Univ. of Washington has licensed it for a search project they're doing. Otherwise I don't know if anyone else has shown an interest.
Did you check out the Wiki? There "seems" to be quite a few companies utilizing the algorithm.
Other uses
The mathematics of PageRank are entirely general and apply to any graph or network in any domain. Thus, PageRank is now regularly used in bibliometrics, social and information network analysis, and for link prediction and recommendation. It's even used for systems analysis of road networks, as well as biology, chemistry, neuroscience, and physics.[38]
Personalized PageRank is used by Twitter to present users with other accounts they may wish to follow.[39]
Swiftype's site search product builds a "PageRank that’s specific to individual websites" by looking at each website's signals of importance and prioritizing content based on factors such as number of links from the home page.[40]
A version of PageRank has recently been proposed as a replacement for the traditional Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) impact factor,[41] and implemented at Eigenfactor as well as at SCImago. Instead of merely counting total citation to a journal, the "importance" of each citation is determined in a PageRank fashion.
A similar new use of PageRank is to rank academic doctoral programs based on their records of placing their graduates in faculty positions. In PageRank terms, academic departments link to each other by hiring their faculty from each other (and from themselves).[42]
PageRank has been used to rank spaces or streets to predict how many people (pedestrians or vehicles) come to the individual spaces or streets.[43][44] In lexical semantics it has been used to perform Word Sense Disambiguation[45] and to automatically rank WordNet synsets according to how strongly they possess a given semantic property, such as positivity or negativity.[46]
A Web crawler may use PageRank as one of a number of importance metrics it uses to determine which URL to visit during a crawl of the web. One of the early working papers [47] that were used in the creation of Google is Efficient crawling through URL ordering,[48] which discusses the use of a number of different importance metrics to determine how deeply, and how much of a site Google will crawl. PageRank is presented as one of a number of these importance metrics, though there are others listed such as the number of inbound and outbound links for a URL, and the distance from the root directory on a site to the URL.
The PageRank may also be used as a methodology to measure the apparent impact of a community like the Blogosphere on the overall Web itself. This approach uses therefore the PageRank to measure the distribution of attention in reflection of the Scale-free network paradigm.
In any ecosystem, a modified version of PageRank may be used to determine species that are essential to the continuing health of the environment.[49]
For the analysis of protein networks in biology PageRank is also a useful tool.[50] [51]
One has been having to wade through piles of Appolytes blindly defending the integrity of the 6 Plus in order to reach the few gems of substance.
In an "imperfect" visualization, your personal opinion would be duly acknowledged and weighted according to verifiable and pertinent metrics... if you chose to offer any... rather than the number of times you state your opinion or berate others for having one differing from your own.
With this data at hand, you "could" be the type to reconsider your stance (if you're not a pecker head), and at least the "plausibility" that your opinion of future sales might be wrong... and heck... with that info you might even be able to make some money by betting on the right horse.
Agreed for cheddar, would avoid some "interesting" Dutch imitations (even though, I recently bought Camembert made in the NL. I was wondering what was so wrong until I figured out it only had the name).
BBC makes Apples round
I am, indeed, conflating both these agreed-rules-of-trade-and commerce. It is exactly where we have different opinions, and to my opinions they are all the more valid debates that even Benjamin F. (Franklin, not Frost) himself was first in favor of not defending IP in order to further free spirit of enterprise, as I understand historical evidence. Regional savoir-faire implies understanding the local weather, soil, and techniques.This is valuable IP in itself, but on top of it, I do believe that if you make wonderful fizzy wine in say, California, it will sell under it's own Irvine (or whatever) name after a few years.
Tokaj is a remarkable Slovakian wine, Lachryma Christi Del Vesuvio comes from Napoli, Champagne comes from Champagne. It just makes sense to me, and I think that people who want to sell their own wines under the "Champagne" or "Tokaj" brand just want a free ride on a world famous IP. If their offerings are valuable, they will sell by their own quality. If they aren't they won't.
Another point: in France or Italy, you buy wine based on their DOP/AOC (a guarantee of regional quality). America and more generally non-wine producing countries, or younger wine-producing countries, tend to sell wine by "cépage", which is the type of grapes used. This already shows the fundamental difference of understanding here, which I believe is the main cause of disagreement on name protection.
Now, I really leave, night!
And that sir... was a great and informative post!
Might I add for the cognoscenti... that original Budweiser Pilsner is brewed to this day since the 16th century in Budweis, Czech Republic... and tastes great... less filling...
They aren't punishing them, Apple knew the expected tax rates when they started doing business. The people setting the rates knew their deficit and what they needed to recoup. They didn't get what they expected from some people so they need to reassess it.
It's like if there's a toll gate across a bridge that someone built. They (public or private body) invested the money to build it and want people to pay for its use. There's a footpath at the side of the toll gate and someone decides to run their motorcycle through it every day for a year to avoid the toll. If the motorcyclist is caught on camera, should he be made to pay for using the bridge without paying for it? He was acting against the intent of the bridge builder. Circumventing rules for your own benefit and leaving the costs for everyone else is nothing to be proud of. If you don't want to pay for the bridge, don't use the bridge. If Apple doesn't want to pay for the roads, hospitals, emergency services, schools, legal services and so on then they should remove their employees and buildings from the countries they are profiting in.
Correct but they have to start somewhere.
Canada isn't part of the EU.
Except that Apple isn't running its motorcycle across the footpath of a toll bridge. It's been crossing a different bridge that constructed decades ago to enable motorcycles to cross without paying the same egregious tolls. It's all legal, it just that the expensive bridge wants to hike the prices on every bridge that crosses the river so they have no competition.
And again, this is one tax (on corporate income). Apple and its resellers collects VAT across the EU, collecting far more for local state coffers that those countries ever did back when people were buying $65 Nokia handsets rather than $650 iPhones.
The real tax artists are companies like MSFT, which "sells" its own subsidiaries expensive licenses that are then "resold" for very little "profit" to third party licensees that bundle the costs into their PCs, keeping the "income" generated wherever MSFT wants it to be, and hiding a massive wealth chain from any sort of taxation. Hardly anyone pays sales taxes on Windows, because most users "get it for free" with a new low priced PC. MSFT then provides low price licensing packages to companies and governments, preventing any potential for competition.
Look at the fabulous wealth MSFT collected while paying very little in taxes simply to write software and market it as a quasi-monopoly-utility globally. Now compare the real products AAPL makes, sells at retail in the market, taxed as products by each country as it sees fit, with full competition from a variety of peers and counterfeiters. Apple's products are mostly real goods, not software licenses that have a ghostlike presence and can be passed around on computers as mass-free ideas with zero product and inventory cost.
GOOG is the same: it "sells" ad placement in a market that it controls and which is exempt from any real accounting. Nobody knows the true value or cost of its service, and the company works hard to prevent any real competition from being able to exist. Nobody can say how much money GOOG is making and the company doesn't even obey local laws - it was caught allowing Canadian pharmacies to advertise drugs to Americans. Imagine if APPL shipped millions of units of products across national borders to skirt import laws.
Yet if you ask Android or PC fans who pays taxes and who doesn't, they will froth over about how Apple doesn't pay taxes because they read everyone is the same, without even thinking. Then they'll start talking about how iPhones bend and how they have to be held a certain way and how Steve Jobs parked in an unused handicapped parking space at his own company. Because that's what they desperately want to believe is important.
Thanks! I don't look at Wikipedia all that often. So Google wasn't as anal about protecting the patent as some have surmised then.
GoogleGuy: its not that Google is "anal," but rather that that company is hypocritical and lying when it says it doesn't like patents, because the foundation of everything of value the company has ever sold comes from patented IP. Google is nothing but IP, patented algorithms.
Around 2008 decided it could make lots of money if it simply appropriated everyone else's IP without paying for it, so it began stealing everything rather than paying any licensing royalties. It stole Apple IP, Java IP, MPEG IP, and began grabbing content from the web and TV to sell its own ads off other people's work without paying anyone a fair cut.
And it did so under a charade of "openness" that was completely hypocritical because Google isn't really open about anything that it actually owns. You can't even put Google apps on an Android phone without obeying its Microsoft-like rules that force bundled product-tying and demand that licensees not compete in any way with Google's own services or strategy for Android.
When Android fans prattle on about how Google is "open," it just demonstrates how gullible and ignorant they are. Google is only open to stealing.
GoogleGuy: its not that Google is "anal," but rather that that company is hypocritical and lying when it says it doesn't like patents, because the foundation of everything of value the company has ever sold comes from patented IP. Google is nothing but IP, patented algorithms.
Around 2008 decided it could make lots of money if it simply appropriated everyone else's IP without paying for it, so it began stealing everything rather than paying any licensing royalties. It stole Apple IP, Java IP, MPEG IP, and began grabbing content from the web and TV to sell its own ads off other people's work without paying anyone a fair cut.
That came out of left-field. Normally you use facts. This time FUD. Perhaps you thought the thread was beginning to wind down and wanted to stir it up a little?
I assume the "Google-guy" tag that you hoped was insulting was directed my way. It doesn't make your comments sound any more valid but if it makes you happy then fine with me.
So what IP did Google steal? Apple hasn't filed any lawsuits saying they stole anything, despite Mr. Jobs rant, and they're hardly afraid of lawyers. In fact they've had nearly zero success in even proving patent infringement against Android licensees (and that might not even have anything to do with Google Android in the first place.)
MPEG didn't do any more than rattle sabers without ever identifying what Google "stole", eventually buckling. If Google stole something from them they sure wimped out when it came to enforcement. Sub-license away Google, no charge.
Oracle hasn't proven anything was "stolen" and may not ever. And what TV shows is Google illicitly grabbing as their own for ad delivery? I assume you might be talking about the silly claims that Hollywood fat-cats at Viacom keep having thrown out of court? If so unlike you even Viacom stops short of saying Google knew of but ignored any specific copyright infringement.
Yeah all that's certainly proof of theft as much as as "stolen IP" claims from assorted parties against Apple are proof of the same.
Well, a wrong and a right would cancel themselves out, so I’ll stick with the latter, thanks. ????
But you'd definitely need at least ONE to stick to the latter.
Get both and at the very least you could chase your personal Pavlovian Dog's tail and make it interesting for us... or at least avail yourself to the advancement of science...
I shall store up your initial insult ready for when you are to be weighed in the balance.
As to the latter—who knows? Maybe I will actually buy a 6 Plus. Stranger things have happened at sea.
Comments
Did you check out the Wiki? There "seems" to be quite a few companies utilizing the algorithm.
Other uses
The mathematics of PageRank are entirely general and apply to any graph or network in any domain. Thus, PageRank is now regularly used in bibliometrics, social and information network analysis, and for link prediction and recommendation. It's even used for systems analysis of road networks, as well as biology, chemistry, neuroscience, and physics.[38]
Personalized PageRank is used by Twitter to present users with other accounts they may wish to follow.[39]
Swiftype's site search product builds a "PageRank that’s specific to individual websites" by looking at each website's signals of importance and prioritizing content based on factors such as number of links from the home page.[40]
A version of PageRank has recently been proposed as a replacement for the traditional Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) impact factor,[41] and implemented at Eigenfactor as well as at SCImago. Instead of merely counting total citation to a journal, the "importance" of each citation is determined in a PageRank fashion.
A similar new use of PageRank is to rank academic doctoral programs based on their records of placing their graduates in faculty positions. In PageRank terms, academic departments link to each other by hiring their faculty from each other (and from themselves).[42]
PageRank has been used to rank spaces or streets to predict how many people (pedestrians or vehicles) come to the individual spaces or streets.[43][44] In lexical semantics it has been used to perform Word Sense Disambiguation[45] and to automatically rank WordNet synsets according to how strongly they possess a given semantic property, such as positivity or negativity.[46]
A Web crawler may use PageRank as one of a number of importance metrics it uses to determine which URL to visit during a crawl of the web. One of the early working papers [47] that were used in the creation of Google is Efficient crawling through URL ordering,[48] which discusses the use of a number of different importance metrics to determine how deeply, and how much of a site Google will crawl. PageRank is presented as one of a number of these importance metrics, though there are others listed such as the number of inbound and outbound links for a URL, and the distance from the root directory on a site to the URL.
The PageRank may also be used as a methodology to measure the apparent impact of a community like the Blogosphere on the overall Web itself. This approach uses therefore the PageRank to measure the distribution of attention in reflection of the Scale-free network paradigm.
In any ecosystem, a modified version of PageRank may be used to determine species that are essential to the continuing health of the environment.[49]
For the analysis of protein networks in biology PageRank is also a useful tool.[50] [51]
Thanks! I don't look at Wikipedia all that often. So Google wasn't as anal about protecting the patent as some have surmised then.
In an "imperfect" visualization, your personal opinion would be duly acknowledged and weighted according to verifiable and pertinent metrics... if you chose to offer any... rather than the number of times you state your opinion or berate others for having one differing from your own.
With this data at hand, you "could" be the type to reconsider your stance (if you're not a pecker head), and at least the "plausibility" that your opinion of future sales might be wrong... and heck... with that info you might even be able to make some money by betting on the right horse.
Olé!..:D
I think he meant that completely different than what you're implying...?!
"Ignorance: the root and stem of all evil" - Plato
... and someone you might better relate to...
"Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven." - Shakespeare
... so WTF is Alice... I mean Matt Ridley... but a British science pundit pontificating about which he has yet to fully grasp or make sense of.
And that sir... was a great and informative post!
Might I add for the cognoscenti... that original Budweiser Pilsner is brewed to this day since the 16th century in Budweis, Czech Republic... and tastes great... less filling...
The gift that keeps on giving.
They aren't punishing them, Apple knew the expected tax rates when they started doing business. The people setting the rates knew their deficit and what they needed to recoup. They didn't get what they expected from some people so they need to reassess it.
It's like if there's a toll gate across a bridge that someone built. They (public or private body) invested the money to build it and want people to pay for its use. There's a footpath at the side of the toll gate and someone decides to run their motorcycle through it every day for a year to avoid the toll. If the motorcyclist is caught on camera, should he be made to pay for using the bridge without paying for it? He was acting against the intent of the bridge builder. Circumventing rules for your own benefit and leaving the costs for everyone else is nothing to be proud of. If you don't want to pay for the bridge, don't use the bridge. If Apple doesn't want to pay for the roads, hospitals, emergency services, schools, legal services and so on then they should remove their employees and buildings from the countries they are profiting in.
Correct but they have to start somewhere.
Canada isn't part of the EU.
Except that Apple isn't running its motorcycle across the footpath of a toll bridge. It's been crossing a different bridge that constructed decades ago to enable motorcycles to cross without paying the same egregious tolls. It's all legal, it just that the expensive bridge wants to hike the prices on every bridge that crosses the river so they have no competition.
And again, this is one tax (on corporate income). Apple and its resellers collects VAT across the EU, collecting far more for local state coffers that those countries ever did back when people were buying $65 Nokia handsets rather than $650 iPhones.
The real tax artists are companies like MSFT, which "sells" its own subsidiaries expensive licenses that are then "resold" for very little "profit" to third party licensees that bundle the costs into their PCs, keeping the "income" generated wherever MSFT wants it to be, and hiding a massive wealth chain from any sort of taxation. Hardly anyone pays sales taxes on Windows, because most users "get it for free" with a new low priced PC. MSFT then provides low price licensing packages to companies and governments, preventing any potential for competition.
Look at the fabulous wealth MSFT collected while paying very little in taxes simply to write software and market it as a quasi-monopoly-utility globally. Now compare the real products AAPL makes, sells at retail in the market, taxed as products by each country as it sees fit, with full competition from a variety of peers and counterfeiters. Apple's products are mostly real goods, not software licenses that have a ghostlike presence and can be passed around on computers as mass-free ideas with zero product and inventory cost.
GOOG is the same: it "sells" ad placement in a market that it controls and which is exempt from any real accounting. Nobody knows the true value or cost of its service, and the company works hard to prevent any real competition from being able to exist. Nobody can say how much money GOOG is making and the company doesn't even obey local laws - it was caught allowing Canadian pharmacies to advertise drugs to Americans. Imagine if APPL shipped millions of units of products across national borders to skirt import laws.
Yet if you ask Android or PC fans who pays taxes and who doesn't, they will froth over about how Apple doesn't pay taxes because they read everyone is the same, without even thinking. Then they'll start talking about how iPhones bend and how they have to be held a certain way and how Steve Jobs parked in an unused handicapped parking space at his own company. Because that's what they desperately want to believe is important.
Thanks! I don't look at Wikipedia all that often. So Google wasn't as anal about protecting the patent as some have surmised then.
GoogleGuy: its not that Google is "anal," but rather that that company is hypocritical and lying when it says it doesn't like patents, because the foundation of everything of value the company has ever sold comes from patented IP. Google is nothing but IP, patented algorithms.
Around 2008 decided it could make lots of money if it simply appropriated everyone else's IP without paying for it, so it began stealing everything rather than paying any licensing royalties. It stole Apple IP, Java IP, MPEG IP, and began grabbing content from the web and TV to sell its own ads off other people's work without paying anyone a fair cut.
And it did so under a charade of "openness" that was completely hypocritical because Google isn't really open about anything that it actually owns. You can't even put Google apps on an Android phone without obeying its Microsoft-like rules that force bundled product-tying and demand that licensees not compete in any way with Google's own services or strategy for Android.
When Android fans prattle on about how Google is "open," it just demonstrates how gullible and ignorant they are. Google is only open to stealing.
Seems the right time for this quote:
"Science isn’t a catalogue of known facts; it is the discovery of new forms of ignorance."
- Matt Ridley
I think he meant that completely different than what you're implying...?!
"Ignorance: the root and stem of all evil" - Plato
... and someone you might better relate to...
"Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven." - Shakespeare
... so WTF is Alice... I mean Matt Ridley... but a British science pundit pontificating about which he has yet to fully grasp or make sense of.
Plato was wrong about the source of evil; that lies within men's hearts. We are all born with it. I like the Shakespeare quote, though.
I assume the "Google-guy" tag that you hoped was insulting was directed my way. It doesn't make your comments sound any more valid but if it makes you happy then fine with me.
So what IP did Google steal? Apple hasn't filed any lawsuits saying they stole anything, despite Mr. Jobs rant, and they're hardly afraid of lawyers. In fact they've had nearly zero success in even proving patent infringement against Android licensees (and that might not even have anything to do with Google Android in the first place.)
MPEG didn't do any more than rattle sabers without ever identifying what Google "stole", eventually buckling. If Google stole something from them they sure wimped out when it came to enforcement. Sub-license away Google, no charge.
Oracle hasn't proven anything was "stolen" and may not ever. And what TV shows is Google illicitly grabbing as their own for ad delivery? I assume you might be talking about the silly claims that Hollywood fat-cats at Viacom keep having thrown out of court? If so unlike you even Viacom stops short of saying Google knew of but ignored any specific copyright infringement.
Yeah all that's certainly proof of theft as much as as "stolen IP" claims from assorted parties against Apple are proof of the same.
That legality is now in question.
That area is called Champagne. You can make whiskey in Iowa, but you can't call it Scotch.
The love of money.
Plato was wrong about the source of evil; that lies within men's hearts. We are all born with it. I like the Shakespeare quote, though.
The love of money.
That must stand as one of the main ones, yes. Evil goes deeper than that, even still.
Evil itself does not exist. It's all perverted, and misguided good.
Well, a wrong and a right would cancel themselves out, so I’ll stick with the latter, thanks. ????
But you'd definitely need at least ONE to stick to the latter.
Get both and at the very least you could chase your personal Pavlovian Dog's tail and make it interesting for us... or at least avail yourself to the advancement of science...
I shall store up your initial insult ready for when you are to be weighed in the balance.
As to the latter—who knows? Maybe I will actually buy a 6 Plus. Stranger things have happened at sea.
And you can make Cheddar anywhere. We've been through this. It's arbitrary and stupid to begin with.
That must stand as one of the main ones, yes. Evil goes deeper than that, even still.
Evil itself does not exist. It's all perverted, and misguided good.
I've just notice that evil is live spelt backwards; how pertinent.
Evil is anti-life.
That must stand as one of the main ones, yes. Evil goes deeper than that, even still.
Evil itself does not exist. It's all perverted, and misguided good.
Would that it were so benign.
No one said it's benign, but it's that simple. Diseases aren't benign, but they are organisms simply trying to survive.