Normally I wouldn't keep a topic like this going, but I just finished reading an interesting article about Google published by Wired (which I happened to find from a link from [H], kinda ironic - wired article here:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...ic=&topic_set= ) and it made me wonder. With the potential legal problems that Google's cache does cause it - just how much stuff does Google's cache have in it?
Well - they still have cached the old BlueCooling BTMS product listing page complete with PayPal links to buy all of the products with no mention that they are in any way incomplete or prototype units. In fact this quote rather makes it look like they are really trying to sell some product (and have sold a reasonable number and have had condensation complaints)
Before Ordering, please refer to web chart provided to identify your CPU and matching BTMS. You can get the entire cached page here:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:...hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Now I'm not sure about the rest of you guys, but I've sat down with [H]-Kyle and had a few beers and gotten to know the guy a bit (admittedly a couple years ago, but I don't think he's changed much). I'm not really sure why everyone around here is constantly [H]-bashing, and I try and stay out of it, enjoying the content of both sites most of the time, and disagreeing with a bit of info from each site on occasion. But whatever most of you think of him, Kyle is not really a bad person, and compared to a new startup company who's product looked like it shouldn't work even before I ever read a review about it I trust Kyle hands down in the case of lack of proof from both sides (remember, anyone with $30 to register a domain name can build a startup web-company). In this case though I believe there is some proof to be found, and it ends up proving Kyle right in the first place.
Edit: Automatically parse URL's and google-cache-style hyperlinks with URL's nested inside them don't get along. Should be fixed now.