Slashdot Mirror

No drop-of-blood-required link here generated via this generator

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/technology/24onl ine.html?ex=1261544400&en=7cc80182b7687ad9&ei=5090 &partner=rssuserland

(Link created by the NY Times Link Generator: http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink )

Most New York Times articles are available without registration. There's a service that provides links that bypass it. Just go here, submit the original URL, and you get back a URL that bypasses registration.

Enjoy

It's not that hard to generate! When posting a story, if you don't want to be an idiot, go to this handy NYT Link Generator

Thanks.

This PSA brought to you by the CSLib Menace.

Hey, Slashdot editors, use this:
http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink

No more searching for google caches, fake logins, or *gasp* actually registering ;). Just copy and paste the NY Times URL and it'll come out with a partner URL (no need for registration, similar to Google News links).

This problem has been solved already: use the blog interface to generate a reg-free link.

The other benefit of using this link generator is that (in theory) the link will never expire

Here's the New York Times link generator. Enter a regular URL and it returns a permanent, no-registration needed link. It's very handy, but certain sections are not supported.

nytimes genlink gives the urls a rssuserland account suffix. most handy. bookmarklet included on page, which works from the nag screen of the article wanted too!

nytimes genlink gives the urls a rssuserland account suffix. most handy. bookmarklet included on page, which works from the nag screen of the article wanted too!

FYI most NYT content can be accessed using a free permalink like this one. For more details see New York Times Link Generator.

Clicky without logging in! Use NYT Generator for these NYT stories.

Use this link instead... The Disco Ball of Failed Hopes and Other Tales From Inside Intel

Thanks to the New York Times Link Generator

Actually, the NYT provides a way of linking directly to stories so that readers of blogs and the like can bypass the registration system. You go to this page and enter the URL of the story you want to link to. When you click "Go", it returns a link to the NYT archives that bypasses registration.

Blogsafe version (get yer blogsafe NYT links at http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink -- why Slashdot doesn't know about this yet I don't know)

Here is a no registration link to the article. This link was generated by New York Times Link Generator.

Reg Free Link

OK, now let's argue over whether or not Slashdot counts as a "Blog", and whether or not we should be using the New York Times Link Generator to create links so that people can RTFA!

Yes, BugMeNot works too, but if you're going to provide an article to Slashdot, at least make it so everyone can read it without jumping through hoops...

And here is the Reg-Free link.

In the future please use the NY Times Blog Link Generator when linking to the soul suckers.

That's not working either (for me at least), and even the faithful NYT link bookmarklet isn't functioning properly. Is this a new level of registration-nitpicking from the NYT?

I once asked the Slashdot editors why they didn't replace reg-required NYT links with reg-free links. They pointed out that there is a chance that the NYT could get its panties in a wad, and do something stupid. Lawsuits, goatse redirects, the works. Lawsuits... that would just be wrong!

Anyway, here's the obligatory reg-free link:
Are you looking at ME?

(Courtesy of these fine folks)

You can also use Aaron Swartz's link generator to create archive-safe links for the NYT. Two of our prominent Australian newspapers are planning to require registration in the near future - I wonder if that will drop their search rankings (which are currently much higher than the NYT).

Here is the registration-free link to that article.

Courtesy of the NYT link generator.

Or you could use the bookmarklet here. Whenever you see the NYT "Please register" page, hit the bookmark and it rewrites the URL into a reg-free link which you are free to use for Slashdot karma whoring.

Why are people not using this:
http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink for the New York times article links..

Regardless of whether this was posted for karma or to benefit other users here, it is still copyright infringement.

Cool - then just do it this way then.

Made from This Page.

Google is giving results on some flash content now.

Information is posted in the Google Blog

"Google now indexes the text Macromedia Flash files, the format behind those often-annoying animations. For example, you can now search for all flash files that say "skip intro"."

why you find it here
ps
good idea about the print only page.

Can't believe I forgot to link the manufacturer's web site in my post! Here it is again:

The NYT article (available here reg-free (thanks, guys!)) is short on details, but the manufacturer's web site has much more detail.

Some interesting notes:

* Their technology currently only works on GSM phones, so here in the US, it'll only block T-Mobile customers. No more Catherine Zeta-Jones hollering "Stop!" in the middle of your bowling tournament. I hate it when that happens.

* The company is Canada-based, so they're outside the reach of Ashcroft & co. The NYT article quotes the company's founder as saying that the technology is useful in mosques... if the founder is indeed Muslim, he's probably wary of landing on Ashcroft's little Enemies List. Heck, I'm worried myself, 'cause I'm not sure what he thinks of Methodists these days!

The NYT article (available here reg-free (thanks, guys!)) is short on details, but the manufacturer's web site has much more detail.

Some interesting notes:

* Their technology currently only works on GSM phones, so here in the US, it'll only block T-Mobile customers. No more Catherine Zeta-Jones hollering "Stop!" in the middle of your bowling tournament. I hate it when that happens.

* The company is Canada-based, so they're outside the reach of Ashcroft & co. The NYT article quotes the company's founder as saying that the technology is useful in mosques... if the founder is indeed Muslim, he's probably wary of landing on Ashcroft's little Enemies List. Heck, I'm worried myself, 'cause I'm not sure what he thinks of Methodists these days!

It popped up randomly based on a randomly set cookie. You could also switch it on manually in preferences for maybe about a month now.

Taadaaaa! -- I think the new look started showing up randomly for people in December and the whole bookmark exploit started showing up late February.

Interesting.

Or you can link it this way using this page.

No Reggie Link for the Article

If you want to be able to help out your fellow slashdotter... create your link using http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink for now on.

Davak

BTW, here is the Google link to the article.

You can make ANY NYTIMES.COM link reg free.... but do editors bother with this.....?

It's a bit of a pain to get news from a wide variety of sources though. Takes quite a bit of time. I've found a couple resources to be useful for this.

Google News and Technorati pick from a wide variety of sources and allow you to search news articles. But I sometimes find it hard to find what I want in all the clutter. Plastic provides moderation and discussion of news, but doesn't have broad coverage. Various RSS aggregators allow me to create your own news feed, but they don't have good coverage of mainstream news sources and they're a bit of a pain to set up. There's a couple recent attempts at personalized news -- Findory News is one -- that try to pull news from a broad variety of sources targetted to your interests.

What do you use?

Google has just as much of a problem as Microsoft does: it's centralized. The message of the Net -- to me -- is that decentralization is how we have to move. Relying on a search engine run by a single organization -- which can be silenced by governments or corporations -- is a bad idea generally. I love Google, but the sooner we can move away from the centralized model, the better.

(Note that Google is on the record as believing that peer-to-peer search engines solve the wrong problem, but I think they're ignoring the legitimate concerns about centralization that P2P solves.)

There's speculation that Google may be running a parallel index because it has run out of numbers available in C for the current index. Which is a fascinating oversight if true!

You probably want the Google weblog. (Note it is run by someone outside of Google. Just for the record.)

Another dupe? Anyway, Aaron Swartz gave good commentary in his weblog here. It's got some linkage. Quote from Enemy of the State: "Well whose monitoring the monitors?"
Gotta do some monitoring myself, see ya!

Webmaster World has the best forums I've seen for Google information.

The Google Weblog is also an excellent resource.

If you want to see Actual Google Inconsistencies, look at this page rank chart: Google Page Rank Discrepancy Chart yes, that really is the url, and yes, it's safe :)

This, and more tricks at the google weblog.

Great job, Aaron Swartz!

Fh

Why would I care to read your stupid rantings? Why would I care to get my daily news from someone with as much authority on the 'news' as myself? Are we so in need of entertainment that our ravenous hunger for material has necessitated the development of individual publishing?

But do you have the time to find all the news on every subject you're interested in? I know I don't (busy posting here!). For example, I'm interested in Google, but I don't have time to find all the news on Google (not Google News), so I visit the Google Weblog and find the news there. Same thing for PHP, I can visit php.com and zend.com but I don't really have time to visit all of the other sites, so I visit PHP Everywhere.

Could I find most of the news they do? Sure. Is the news all theirs? No, most of them are full of links to other news sources. But, since so they're interested in this news topc, over time, they can become "experts" on it themselves.

An RSS feed would be nice, too!

There's more Google news posted on the Google Weblog, if anyone's interested.

Plus, they don't seem to repeat stories :-)

Just look at what ingredients you have available and ask Google to find a recipe to match :).

Fh

So "Everyman", we meet again.

Time for me to critique your article again. I'm mostly going to cut-and-paste from our discussions earlier this month at Search Engine Forums and alt.internet.search-engines. Once again, here are the key problems with your essay:

The argument that PageRank buries sites in the results is useless. Any method of choosing sites out of a large database is going to bury listings at the bottom. Getting rid of PageRank won't change the fact that "somebody has to lose", it just changes how they lose. (Which, as everyone else here has pointed out, the real problem you have with Google: You want someone else to lose.)

Nitpicking the definition of democracy is a cheap rhetorical trick. Go look up the definition of the word. It's both simpler and more complex than your inane "one man, one vote definition" -- democracy is based on the will of the people, but there are a lot of ways besides "one man, one vote" that the will of the people can be measured. (If democracy was as simple as you think it is, we've have to disband the U.S. Senate for disproportional representation.)

You're attacking Google for not being democratic enough (by a shallow definition of democracy) when it's the most democratic major engine on the Web. Linkpop is one of two approaches (the other being clickpop) that makes the opinions of others important in the algorithm, and the only one judges content-producters based on the opinions of their peers. In essence, content-producers are judged by other content-producers, not by Google. Google is not a tyrant, Google is a naive populist that's trying to quantify peer review.

The repeated mentions of dot com failures and Altavista is an even cheaper rhetorical trick. You're repeatedly mentioning failed and suspect ("false promise") businesses to prime the reader into assuming Google must be crooked, too. Why don't you just ask if they've stopped beating their wives? It would be quicker.

You have a weird definition of "objective". (So weird, I'm not sure what it is.) The FTC definition of objective is "not influence by money". Yours seems to be "not influenced by anything". You're never going to convince the FTC (or anybody else) that it's illegal to judge content by its reputation.

The complaint that Google doesn't crawl everything is just, well, stupid. Nobody crawls everything. Singling out Google for a "flaw" that every engine has is foolish. That's not a failing of Google, it's just the state of the technology today. For every webmaster who says search engines don't crawl enough of his site, there's a webmaster who says search engines crawl too much too fast. Google and the other engines are still trying to find the balance between the two extremes.

Wrapping things up, none of your proposed "reforms" will create a better engine, they'll just create a different engine. More importantly, it would be an engine that's more dictatorial than the current models, because it would depend on text-analysis. Text analysis is the most autocratic way of finding websites, because it's controlled entirely by one actor (the engine).

You're not arguing for democracy or for the people. You're just arguing for a return to the kind of autocracy you think will benefit you more. You want content-providers to matter less not more, and to give all the power back to the engines. That's not a step forward.

As for cookies, you're insisting on singling out Google for something lots of sites do. Checking my Temporary Internet Files folder right now, I see 10-year or longer cookies from Altavista, Yahoo, and Looksmart, as well as from non-search companies like TV Guide, Sprint PCS, and Metafilter. Long-lived cookies aren't a government conspiracy, they're just a (widespread) sign of lazy programming.

You're just fixating on Google because Matt Cutts used to work for the NSA, and your obvious obsession with government intelligence agencies is affecting your judgement.

for all those who want to be up to date about google, there's a nice blog especially for this topic.

If you're a huge Google fan (and aren't we all) check out Google Weblog.

One of the links they provided was for info on Google's new Find Anything service...check it out.

(Smiley captioning for the humor-impaired: sed "s/out./out. :-)/g")

If you're a huge Google fan (and aren't we all) check out Google Weblog. They had this story 2 days ago, plus they keep you up to date on other cool Google happenings.

And no, it's not my site. I just think it's cool.

You don't know of enough tech sites to claim that "almost every tech site" banded together on something. No one does.