Slashdot Mirror

You can still have links categorized by hand. Just use a directory, not a search engine.

There's still the original Yahoo directory: http://dir.yahoo.com/. Which, by the way, you can actually search for what you want. All links are hand moderated, so what you're looking for should be relevent to the category.

There's also the Open Directory Project: http://dmoz.org/. This is the roughly the same as the Yahoo version.. but its open! :)

I was using Google to search for this sort of thing. A pain in the friggen mouse. Much better search engine is dmoz.org. There are **many** products out there that can do what you want.

Another way to search is to go on sourceforge and look for CRM (Customer Relation Management) in the Enterprise part...

Having said all that, I'll recommend OTRS.

--LWM

1. I don't see your software in the advertised links on the right of the Google results. Why not?

2. This tells me you guys aren't trying very hard. Not a single link from a press release, a software site like Tucows, a blog, SOMETHING. You have to talk about your product!

3. This tells me the same thing as #2. You have to talk about your product!!! There are tons of "announce" newsgroups specifically for you to announce your product! Use them! They'll get picked up by websites that relay this info, and indexed by Google.

4. Have you added your URL to the DMOZ directory? Why not? DMOZ will get picked up and replicated by hundreds of sites!

5. In the above post, you mentioned "Groove" 4 times, and iKE 3 times. How will people trust your product if you pound into their heads that it's just like this other product?

6. Have you asked any magazines or bloggers to review your software? Why not?

In short, the problem is not your website. Your problem is that you need to advertise.

http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/P/pollei/Maps_and_Geogra phy/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/qpegps/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtualhiker/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/roadnav/

Here you are: http://dmoz.org/profiles/deadsea.html

You're certainly a more prolific editor than I am. I apologize for my arrogance. :)

I wonder if you can find my editor profile? ;-)

The problem I have with this is that there are many problems with identifying trusted sites and maintaining the trustworthiness of such sites after they have been chosen.

From Google's point of view, a trusted site would have to have strict editorial standards and link to a lot of sites. I can think of a lot of sites with strict editorial content, but they generally do not link to a lot of sites. The open directory projects seems to me to be a candidate for a trusted site. It has editorial controls and links to a heck of a lot of sites.

The first question to ask is: "After the trusted sites is chosen, how much would it cost to buy one?". I suppose dmoz itself would be hard to buy outright, but how much would it take to buy one of the editors, or to buy an editorial position? Probably not much. Dmoz alread has a lot of editorial fraud and it would make the problem worse. I'm not sure that its fair to expect trusted sites not to degrade to some extent.

The second question to ask is: "How hard is it to buy links from trusted sites?". The answer has to be that it is pretty easy. Forget about corrupting the people as I discussed in the last point. Any trusted site that links to lots of pages is going to have a huge link management problem. Every day hundreds of domains that it links to may expire. You can snap those up and buy trust.

All this doesn't even include folks who make sites look trustworthy with the sole intention of turning them to the dark side later. All of this happens currently with pagerank, but it will be much worse once the trust power is put into the hands of a few.

--
Exchange Rate Currency Calculator

But searching sucks, and I depend on Evolution to do virtual folders. I'd love it even more if my email server was actually a true RDBMS where I could have, besides the traditional IMAP interface, a D (Tutorial D or D4 or something the like) language interface where I could query at will, and save my queries as views that would show up in IMAP as (virtual) folders.

BTW, even non-relational ISO SQL would be so much better than what we have now.

Yep, you're lucky Håkan Lans never patented the computer pointing device aka "mouse" he constructed (ie: XEROX Parc may have attached it to a computer, but not invented it). Otherwise it could have gone as with color screens for PC:s. Huge license fees. Oh, wait. Most companies don't pay them, and when they were taken to court, judgement was against Håkan Lans!)...

You heard right, most PC vendors don't pay their license fees. This means Håkan Lans has been losing around 1 billion SEK (about 1e8/$1.5e8!) Read more here, here, here and here (sorry, some links only in Swedish).

I guess if it's that hard for small companies to get licenses fees paid for hardware patents, I don't want any software patents. Hope the EU parliament keeps them off of Sweden in the future too (swedish law didn't allow software patents before, if I remember correctly).

It is actually Open Directory sorted by PageRank.

> Could you please elaborate a bit on why SQL is not relational?

You'd be better reading Date, Darwen and Pascal; but in a general way, SQL is full of conceptual errors and arbitrary limitations.

As for arbitrary limitations, the biggest one is lack of user-defined types. But the real problem is the conceptual side; for example, SQL allows for tables that are not relations, because a relation is a set and without a primary key an SQL table is just a bag.

The end result is that SQL is a lot less powerful and more complicated than it should be. And incidentally this is why people keep thinking they need an OODB or XMLDB or whatever, each of which are actually necessarily less powerful and more complicated than the relational model too.

mmm to be a monopoly and its perks

Yeah, because no other search engines exist.

Finkployd

This post is nonsense. First of all, Fortran is not "dead" . There are about 10 Fortran 95 compilers, listed at http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Language s/Fortran/Compilers/ , and compilers are adding features from the recently approved Fortran 2003 standard. Two reasons Fortran did lose much market share were
(1) the slow arrival of the Fortran 90 standard, which added dynamic memory allocation, a full set of control structures, user-defined types and free source form, and which otherwise remedied the defects of Fortran 77.
(2) the lack of a free Fortran 90 compiler.

G95 does implement practically all of Fortran 95, including the features listed in (1), and gfortran is progressing towards that goal. It is obscene to accuse the volunteers of g95 and gfortran of "killing Fortran".

I agree. That's what drove me away from Yahoo.

I used to use Yahoo all the time, but at some point they forgot that the reason everyone used them was the search directory. They started getting obstructive towards the people trying to get listed in the directory, and dmoz.org was launched as a result, pulling away a lot of users.

Then the default was changed for the Yahoo home page, so that when you entered a search term, instead of getting a nice useful list of annotated directory entries, you just got a typical search engine response--except not as good as Google's. Away went thousands more users. I gave up too, as it wasn't at all obvious to me how to find the directory that used to be there, but I could easily find dmoz.org.

Now it seems as if they've un-hidden the directory via "tabs" on the home page. Unfortunately, it's still crippled. You enter a term in directory search and it gives you a page of search results you didn't want, and at the top a couple of links saying there are "related" directory entries you might be interested in. Call me picky, but if I request to search X, the site shouldn't respond with Y and say "Oh, and by the way, you can also search X".

So you click the links to go through to the directory, at which point you discover that it's pretty puny compared to dmoz.org (compare and contrast searches for a random topic).

If you try to add a link, you discover why the Yahoo directory now sucks: they basically offer no ability to add links in a timely fashion unless you pay them money. In other words, they want to charge you money for the privilege of helping them improve their product and compete with Google and dmoz.

Google have never forgotten why people go to them. They're picky about what new features they add, and they keep the interface clean so that existing users don't suddenly find themselves lost. They're also careful not to remove functionality simply because it no longer fits the corporate strategy of the month.

While I don't speak for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, I am a regular follower and poster of the events on the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list where this proposal has taken on a bit of urgancy.

The main point that needs to be looked at is the fact that Wikipedia has been experiencing some absolutely explosive growth in demand from people both trying to add articles, as well as people simply accessing it, like numerous cross-links to Wikipedia mentioned in various /. articles as well as references in news media. All of this crushing demand to view content (where Wikipedia could produce a slashdot effect on /. itself) is taking up bandwidth that simply requires money just to be able to serve up the content.

The current proposed budget for maintaining the servers is on the order of $130,000 and all of that comes from voluntary donations of the community. (BTW, please give some $$$ if you are a regular user of Wikipedia).

Google has quietly given an offer to not only co-locate some Wikimedia servers at their facilities, but also to pay for the servers themselves as part of the general Google server farm.

From what I've seen, nothing in the proposal is to have Google "take over" the Google content. Just like Google uses data in the Open Directory Project for their google website directory, they are free to use the content of Wikipedia as long as they comply with the terms of the Gnu Free Documentation License.

This is not a way to "lock up" the content, but rather a way to browse Wikipedia in a way where you can be assured that the bandwidth is available to view the content. Basically, a mirror of the Wikipedia project. This is not even a new idea.

I would imagine that the fine points of negotiation right now are that links to add content would be folded back into the main-line Wikipedia database. This is just like the Open Directory Project has been doing for a number of years, so the preceedence is definitely there, even for Google. I don't deny that there is a valid business rationale for Google to host Wikipedia, but don't read more into it than is there: Google offering to host Wikipedia content.

John Dvorak absolutely does not speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, or even as a member of the community in general, and his comments are just to inflame issues from an otherwise uninterested technology journalist just trying to improve the sales of the publications he works for. Having been through similar publicity flare-ups in the past with other "open source" groups, Mr. Dvorak is not showing behavior consistant with even mediocre journalists that would at least contact members of the community he is reporting about. He is just doing raw speculation and that is it.

This article is disingenuous and I hope that Dvorak gets taken to task for the comments that he has made. I also hope that people like him don't kill the good-faith proposal that frankly the Wikipedia could really use, nor "poison" the water of other potential offers to help out in relieving the crushing bandwidth needs of the Wikipedia and other related projects. It is articles like this that give journalists an awful name and destroy what is left of credibility to their profession.

Not only that, but the open content license also allows Google to profit from providing premium access (read: low-latency) to their own instance of the content.

Not only that, but from Google's point-of-view Wikipedia provides the benifits of Yahoo's original function and the Open Directory Project. That is, the community's openness actually seems to provide insentive to edit and add to the the content, while the collective wiki gardening also removes wrong, out-of-date, or very low quality articles and spam from the system. Thus Wikis - and Wikipedia in particular - generally provide high quality links that search engines can use to target and/or refine their search bots. This helps them with searching, targeting adwords, anti-spam filtering in Gmail, among others. That's why spammers try vandalizing them so much. Given Google's lead among their peers with document analysis algorithms, they have a high incentive to support wikis like Wikipedia.

Yeah, you're not kidding! Amazon delivers everywhere. That page even claims that they deliver to Bouvet Island, an uninhabited island in the Antarctic Indian Ocean, claimed by Norway!

bloglines' user-interface is clunky and hard to use anyway. there are dozens of other better web-based aggregators out there:

dmoz

my personal favorite, waggr (www.waggr.com), is faster, easier to use, and has a much better interface

You can pay for Microsoft products, or you can not use a computer.

I see...so you can not run Linux on said computer either?

Or MenuetOS?

I mean, I'm sure there must be some other choice for an x86 right? Or television with Internet access for that matter...

> Kind of like a directory of sites like, say, Yahoo was in the 90's.

DMOZ

Try: The Google Directory http://www.google.com/dirhp.

The data is from the Open Directory Project http://dmoz.org/ an almost entirely volunteer-run project http://dmoz.org/about.html. I suggest using the Google version because, for most people, its search facility is better than the ODP search, due to the fact that it works like most Google users would expect a search to work.

The actual directory is variable in quality - some of it is very, very good indeed. However, it suffers from the normal problem that many volunteer-run projects have: parts it are neglected, and rather out of date. Always worth a look though.

Try: The Google Directory http://www.google.com/dirhp.

The data is from the Open Directory Project http://dmoz.org/ an almost entirely volunteer-run project http://dmoz.org/about.html. I suggest using the Google version because, for most people, its search facility is better than the ODP search, due to the fact that it works like most Google users would expect a search to work.

The actual directory is variable in quality - some of it is very, very good indeed. However, it suffers from the normal problem that many volunteer-run projects have: parts it are neglected, and rather out of date. Always worth a look though.

You just described both dmoz and del.icio.us. And since both offer web services interfaces, you could easily create your own frontend to either.

What next? Professional wrestling is scripted?

Pro wrestling is not generally scripted. The match finishes are set-up by "road agents," retired old wrestlers, on the basis that they are the hook which will keep the marks returning. Promos, the speeches wrestlers give, are sometimes scripted but this is avoided when possible as it usually comes off bad when performed live (wrestlers are not actors); usually the wrestlers are given bullet-points containing the essential issues the bookers (wrestling writers and planners) want advanced in that month's storyline.

For the most part, professional wrestling is improvised based on the structure of the match's finish as set up by road agents, and on the storyline points which are to be communicated. Within the framework established by the agents and bookers, the workers (wrestlers) are pretty much free to work spots (perform a sequence of moves) and create matches dynamically in accordance to the fluid reaction of the crowd. This is known in wrestling lingo as "psychology".

Professional wrestling has far more in common with olde improv comedy - or even, transcendentally, with pro-wrestling video games, than it does with a movie or any other modern 'scripted' analog.

PS - Most everything on TV is fraudulent to some degree, from the news to "reality" shows. Broadcast networks are run by Machiavellians. The bottom lines are ratings and brand-building; accuracy, honesty and integrity don't enter into it, except as they affect the bottom lines (i.e. PR).

HAL: I've just picked up a fault in the AE35 unit. It's going to go 100% failure in 72 hours.

ok here are some examples though some cost a little.

Most IRC servers support ssl. in BitchX do:-

BitchX -SSL irc.foo.com 7000 (could be .com:7000) most servers tell you what the correct port is for ssl.

Xchat has the ssl libraries static so you can use it in windows aswell. /server -SSL irc.foo.com 7000

both clients suffer on openbsd though so just setup stunnel if required I think they are both ok on freebsd now but not checked.

Newsgroups - well this is not a free option www.easynews.com offer secure connections and ssl downloads https://secure.members.easynews.com but can be a bit expensive.. or just use the ssl port on the easynews nntp server.

www
Again only free if you look hard enough but http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Proxying_and_Fi ltering/Hosted_Proxy_Services/ supply some good subscription based proxy services which just setup a vpn through your browser so no need to install a client.
http://red-library.com/ have a proxy section if you don't care about encryption for normal browsing though.

years ago they was a very cool client from http://www.freedom.net/ I have not tried it recently due to staying with linux and openbsd. But it would encrypt any of your traffic through its servers, encrypted in layers which was rather hard to trace...

here is a small writeup on onion routing. http://zoo.cs.yale.edu/classes/cs490/00-01b/oh.jas on.jeo8/section5.html

they are alternatives some odd p2p implementations floating around ect.

As always things can be used for bad aswell as good.. does not mean such services should seise to exist :)

hope this helps

The category in question is this, which is the turkish category about the Kurdish people.

The editor had not edited the category that was posted in the original story. Sorry for that mixup.

The category in question is this, which is the turkish category about the Kurdish people.

The editor had not edited the category that was posted in the original story. Sorry for that mixup.

Bad form to reply to one's own posting, but if you would like to put a spoke in the Turkish government's wheel and you know something of Kurdish affairs - why not

Volunteer

to edit one of these categories and make damn sure the information remains free, even if Ertas is not?

"I believe that organizations like DMOZ should have the ability to quickly react, perhaps in protest, to situations like this one."

"I believe that organizations like DMOZ should have the ability to quickly react, perhaps in protest, to situations like this one."

"I believe that organizations like DMOZ should have the ability to quickly react, perhaps in protest, to situations like this one."

"I believe that organizations like DMOZ should have the ability to quickly react, perhaps in protest, to situations like this one."

"I believe that organizations like DMOZ should have the ability to quickly react, perhaps in protest, to situations like this one."

dude, did you even bother to check the links? i can't read turkish but even i can tell from the category he posted in (Top: World: Türkçe: Toplum: Sorunlar: Terörizm: Terör Örgütleri) that he is calling this group a terror organization and is therefore agreeing with you. he has provided an appropriate categorization of the information.

it seems to me that if you are agreeing with the sentence then you agree with the Turkish government -- that information should be censored. he didn't post anything new or even a radical opinion of the group. he called them terrorists and provided information. in my American eyes (perhaps Civilized eyes would be more appropriate considering...), this is not a crime.

I've got some tube type shortwave receivers including a Hammarlund HQ-129X ca. 1946, a Hallicrafters S-38 ca. 1946, a Collins 75A-2 ca. 1952 and a transmitter, a Heathkit DX-40, all in good working condition. Radios like this are often referred to as "Boat Anchors"

There are quite a number of Ham radio transmitting power amplifiers from various manufacturers on the market that use tubes, too.

73 - K9LJB

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain "Boat Anchors"

I've got some tube type shortwave receivers including a Hammarlund HQ-129X ca. 1946, a Hallicrafters S-38 ca. 1946, a Collins 75A-2 ca. 1952 and a transmitter, a Heathkit DX-40, all in good working condition. Radios like this are often referred to as "Boat Anchors"

There are quite a number of Ham radio transmitting power amplifiers from various manufacturers on the market that use tubes, too.

73 - K9LJB

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain "Boat Anchors"

when I first became an editor of the Open Directory Project http://dmoz.org/ I soon ran out of sites to add to my category. So I went over to Yahoo and stared adding sites that they had...though I didnt copy the reviews cause that wouldn't be right, apart from copyright issues.

Don't see anything wrong in using other peoples work to build on.

Sure Google has a super huge index of the internet but Google uses DMOZ as a starter to get its bots going. Now I would expect that it probably doesn't have to do this anymore since it can rely on its own data and people now submit links directly to them. DMOZ's directory is freely available for download so why wouldn't M$ use that as a jump off point?

The Open Directory Project (ODP) at dmoz.org is the "largest human-edited directory in the world" and is "owned" by AOL since it came from Netscape ... although it's mostly community volunteers helping out, although AOL provides hardware and some staffing assistance.

And here they are converted to actual links:

Ruby Home
http://www.ruby-lang.org/

Ruby Forum (new! primarily for beginners)
http://www.ruby-forum.org/bb/

Ruby Online Docs
http://www.ruby-doc.org/

Ruby Project Archives
http://raa.ruby-lang.org/
http://rubyforge.org/

Ruby Package Manager (easy to install ruby apps)
http://rubygems.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl

Ruby IDE (free!)
http://freeride.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl

Ruby One-Click Installer for Windows
http://rubyinstaller.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl

Ruby IRC channel
#ruby-lang at irc.openprojects.net

Ruby Newsgroup
news://comp.lang.ruby

Ruby Links
http://www.rubycentral.com/links/index.html
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/Ru by/Software/

Bladeless or Tesla turbines are much simpler compared to traditional bladed designs. Why not use these for power generation, hybrid-electric cars, etc.?

DMoz Tesla Turbine page

It is not true that no one ever did anything with Date's and Darwen's ideas on a relational language. Check, for instance, the category I edit at the Open Directory, or even Darwen's own The Third Manifesto website with its list of projects.

Probably the poster is confused about the nature of Tutorial D. As it names indicate, it is but an example of a possible 'D', and one targeted at instruction at that. This accounts for its COBOLishness. It is possible to implement a non-Tutorial D that is completely faithful to the Relational Model and the Third Manifesto, yet has a distinct flavour.

For example, Alphora Dataphor implements D4, which was a compliant D until having had to incorporate SQL NULLs quite recently, and it has a Pascal flavour to it; Opus and Duro are C-like; there was a guy wanting to implement a C#-like D-flat language; Alfredo Novoa is implementing Tutorial D itself in MS.Net; and so on.

By the way, it is interesting that until now the more ambitious projects, that seem to be Alphora's and Mr Novoa's, are in MS .Net. Time for the free software community to rise to the challenge!

It is not true that no one ever did anything with Date's and Darwen's ideas on a relational language. Check, for instance, the category I edit at the Open Directory, or even Darwen's own The Third Manifesto website with its list of projects.

Probably the poster is confused about the nature of Tutorial D. As it names indicate, it is but an example of a possible 'D', and one targeted at instruction at that. This accounts for its COBOLishness. It is possible to implement a non-Tutorial D that is completely faithful to the Relational Model and the Third Manifesto, yet has a distinct flavour.

For example, Alphora Dataphor implements D4, which was a compliant D until having had to incorporate SQL NULLs quite recently, and it has a Pascal flavour to it; Opus and Duro are C-like; there was a guy wanting to implement a C#-like D-flat language; Alfredo Novoa is implementing Tutorial D itself in MS.Net; and so on.

By the way, it is interesting that until now the more ambitious projects, that seem to be Alphora's and Mr Novoa's, are in MS .Net. Time for the free software community to rise to the challenge!

With a small drive, you might be able to squeeze an early edition of Windows 95 onto it (I've done this but it's painful). However, Windows 3.1 will comfortable fit on such a drive just fine.

• http://www.toms.net/rb/
• floppy fw

Just shop around for one that is well-designed and uses technologies you're ready to support in-house. PHP or Java or .NET or whatever hitting MySQL or Oracle or SQL Server on Windows or Unix. Ask the company how the application is designed. Is it uncoupled from the database? Does it require queuing? Is it a SOA design that can be extended easily? Does it have desktop and web clients? Is it based on one of the open source or commercial portals, like Plone or Content Management Server?

I'd say it's a good bet that you'll find something out there that fits the bill. If anything at least you'll be able to justify writing one because you did your homework.

This could be a good place to start.

I would love this product integrated with a head mounted display. Can you imagine looking around in stereo AND your head controls tracking.

Would that not simply be a virtual reality helmet, such as this one? Some other stuff may be found here and here.

Looking around I can't really find any integrated tracker/display headsets, though it is may be because I am not looking in the right places. Expect anywhere from $500 to $3000 and up for these solutions.

weren't these things in the news last week? yup

A vital side note: Heinz von Foerster had published a paper in 1960 on global population: von Foerster, H, Mora, M. P., and Amiot, L. W., "Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D." 2026, Science 132, 1291-1295 (1960). In this paper, Heinz shows that the best formula that describes population growth over known human history is one that predicts the population will go to infinity on a Friday the 13 in November of 2026. As Roger Gregory likes to say, "That's just whacko!" The problem is, after he published the paper, it kept predicting population growth better than the other models. (see section 4.1 "Systems Ecology Notes") One of Heinz's early University of Illinois colleagues was Richard Hamming of "Hamming code" fame. Once while visiting the Naval Postgraduate School, I asked Dr. Hamming what he thought of Heinz von Foerster. Professor Hamming's response was "Heinz von Foerster: Now there's a first class kook!" I suspect Heinz's publication of, what Transhumanists call, "the singularity" had really gotten to Hamming -- not that Heinz wasn't eccentric enough get Hamming's goat in any case. Well, to continue this digression so as to give the damn Transhumanists a much-deserved keyboard lashing: It's one thing to be a guy like Hamming and denounce Heinz as a "kook" for following his formulae where they lead -- it's another to turn Heinz's formulae into a virtual religion, call it "the singularity" and totally forget where the idea came from the first place. I suggest the Transhumanists cite Heinz in the future whenever they refer to "the singularity" and think about his assumptions -- the primary one being that societies success varies directly with population size. It might be good to see if his model fits the data subsequent to the last check of which I am aware -- 1973 -- which just happens to be right at the point high population density societies decided to abandon their forward progress toward the space frontier.

Take a look at the Open Directory Project's category on it.

God, I remember staying up nights back in 91/92 finishing the Sonic games. It's enough to make me want to go plug the console in right now and spend some time with Sonic&Knuckles + Sonic 1. :-\