Slashdot Mirror

Chrismo was one of several readers to contribute this news: "Google Groups now has the Deja content back to 1995 online." While that still leaves plenty of Usenet not yet accounted for, it's a huge step (backward) forward.

Chrismo was one of several readers to contribute this news: "Google Groups now has the Deja content back to 1995 online." While that still leaves plenty of Usenet not yet accounted for, it's a huge step (backward) forward.

The war on drugs is expensive, and, like most wars, deadly. But it looks like it isn't going to go away any time soon. With that as a given, why not let those who want to wage war on drugs do it in an online gaming environment? The cost of setting up the servers for "Drug Czar" would be lots less than the cost of all those street arrests, border interdictions, and air intercept missions in Peru and Colombia. And, best of all, no one would get hurt.

It could be a wonderful game, with shoot-em-up segments, sim-style strategy, morbid scenes of decayed inner-city neighborhoods, jut-jawed cops and Federal agents, droopy-drawered street drug vendors, and plenty of other colorful characters. Add in politicians, TV preachers, Colombian kingpins, middle-aged parents trying to keep their kids on the straight and narrow plus a bunch of furtive teenage drug experimenters, and you'd have roles in this MUD-variant for everyone who is interested in the drug war -- from either side.

Some players' roles would be predetermined. The U.S. government's drug policy chief would obviously get the Drug Czar role. George W. Bush would play the President. Congressmen, Senators, and agency heads could also mirror their real-life selves. A few taxpayers might whine about these officials getting paid to play games, but isn't the drug war nothing but a silly game anyway? And if it must be played, shouldn't it be played in a virtual environment where keeping a non-violent drug offender in prison doesn't cost taxpayers $20,000 or more per year, and lives aren't ruined or lost?

You can even argue that this game would be the most effective anti-drug policy the government could possibly have. If, indeed, video games have the potential to turn young people into killers, then hollow-faced, chronically sick game avatar junkies constantly searching for a high "by any means necessary" should steer plenty of kids onto the straight and narrow.

There are other drug-dealing games out there, but they don't have the scope, power, and visual ingenuity it will take to wean government drug warriors (not to mention people on the lucrative "dark side" of the fight) away from the non-virtual version. "Drug Czar" needs to be truly overwhelming, a game so vast that only the government can afford to produce it and make it freely available to players all over the world.

How much would all this cost to design and set up? $10 million? $20 million? Even a billion dollars would be a trifle compared to the cost of the offline version. And if it was an Open Source project (I'm sure SourceForge would be happy to host it, especially if the government kicked in a little pocket change to help with server maintenance), I'll bet volunteers from all over the world would help with development.

But remember, U.S.government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, so this isn't going to happen unless you write your elected representatives to tell them that you understand how much fun they are having with their war on drugs, and that you don't want want to take that pleasure away from them but would like them to stop playing it in real life and move it onto the Internet, where it would be less dangerous and more fun than the current version -- and probably at least as effective.

GeHa writes "ABCnews has a story about the possible recovery of a hidden Japanese gold cache. Remember Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon?" A search on google brings up several interesting stories on this Thai gold hunt, including one to a 1996 article which includes a photo allegedly showing the entrance to the cave holding this cache. Now I have to re-read Cryptonomicon;)

Starting the show off with some cool do-it-yourselfer sorta projects: Diederik Meijer submitted the The Silicon Graphics Refrigerator Project (or: How To Turn a $175.000 High-End SGI Challenge DM Server into a Fridge). Next up, mdaughtrey built a Mechanical Hit Counter jrbx1 sent us a link to an in-dash Atari 2600. Even coolor is that the dash its in is attached to a 1978 volkswagon ;) rednax sent us a review of a kit for adding neon to your PC. If you're not skilled enough to hack how it works, at least you can pretend you're cool and hack how it looks! I Nothing is more dangerous then glewtion's link to a story about a sculpture in england that that worries people since the heat it generates cook fry a bird mid-air. Oh, and I lied: even more dangerous then art is amasci's link to making pet ball-lightning. In your microwave, duh. If you've got some spare time, MxTxL submitted something that we've been seeing more of, email games. This one is battlemail, which apparently is glorified addictive paper rock scissors. f you were an Anime character, here's some helpful hints to keep in mind. Hieronymus Coward sent us a bit about The Drew Carrey Show featuring a 2 minute segment based on the sims. I wonder if they will use the vibromatic bed, actually the next expansion comes out soon (today?) so I probably am gonna have to resurrect my neighborhood sometime soon. Thirsty? Dipfan sent in a story about Coke wanting to put soda fountain style coke in every house right next to the water dispenser. Got Carbonated Milk? Finally for a little random product plugging, Rustin H. Wright found a place selling penguin crossing signs. Finally, anotherone noted that you can use Google in full swedish bork bork chef glory.

Jón Ragnarsson asks: "I'm loosing my mind over my bookmarks. I use 3 computers on a daily basis, and not even one of them is mobile. I have about 10 instances of browsers on them, each and every one with it's own bookmark system. I have countless times cursed when I'm at home but need some obscure bookmark on my computer at work, and just can't remember the url or phrases to find it in Google. So last night I went on a mission: I decided to think up a standard to store and retreive bookmarks. But first I deceided to search the Net just in case if somebody else had done the same thing. I typed 'bookmark protocol' in Google and behold, the fourth link mentioned the ACAP - Application Configuration Access Protocol, defined in rfc2244. So, why isn't it used?"

"It's much more than a simple bookmark storage, the RFC remarks:

The Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) is designed to support remote storage and access of program option, configuration and preference information.

Probably the main reason this isn't being used is because you can't rely on every user having access to an ACAP server. Well, why not have both? Your browser could implement a mini-server until you find one that you can use. So should I suggest this to Mozilla/Microsoft/Opera? Or is there a simpler way. When Netscape was the king, I simply uploaded the bookmark file to my homepage area, it worked (more or less). And since I use browser 90% for content not on my computer I'm very likely to have net access when I'm using my browser. So could this be feasable, or am I daydreaming again?"

Last Saturday a comment was posted here by an anonymous reader that contained text that was copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. They have since followed the DMCA and demanded that we remove the comment. While Slashdot is an open forum and we encourage free discussion and sharing of ideas, our lawyers have advised us that, considering all the details of this case, the comment should come down. Read on to understand what this means.

This is the first time since we instituted our moderation system that a comment has had to be removed because of its content, and believe me nobody is more broken hearted about it than me. It's a bad precedent, and a blow for the freedom of speech that we all share in this forum. But this simply doesn't look like a case we can win. Our lawyers tell us that it appears to be a violation of Copyright law, and under the terms of the DMCA, we must remove it. Else we risk legal action that would at best be expensive, and potentially cause Slashdot to go down temporarily or even permanently. At the worst, court orders could jeporadize your privacy, and we would be helpless to stop it.

We need to choose our battles and this isn't one we want to have. We want Slashdot to be a forum where you can say what's in your heart, but we simply can't defend an anonymous poster who violates copyright law. Keep that in mind when you post in both this discussion, and in others in the future. Post your ideas. Post your thoughts. And most of all, post your links. We need to play by the rules or it's game over.

Now there is the matter of this specific comment. It contained a text called "OT III", part of what is known as the Fishman Affidavit. This text is Copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. In compliance with the DMCA, we are removing it from Slashdot. In its place we are putting non-copyrighted text: Links to websites about the church of Scientology, as well as links to how you can contact your congressman about the DMCA. Thanks a lot to Jamie for putting this together.

First of all, we would like to point out that the text of OT III is available at many other places on the web. To many to list here in fact. Instead, try a Google search on "OT III" and "Fishman", which as of this writing (March 2001) returns over 250 pages. A broader search on AltaVista returns over 2,000 webpages.

Operating in the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts, Karin Spaink's Fishman Affidavit webpage has fended off two lawsuits from Scientology, one in 1996 and one in 1999. The latter suit, according to the page, is still being appealed. >From the link listed just above, you can click through to the Fishman Affidavit, which contains links to not only to an annotated copy of OT III, but to the documents on the other OT levels as well, number one through the disputed number eight.

If you would like a plain English explanation of OT III, see OT III Rewritten For Beginners, by Jon Atack. Its author is a former Scientologist who himself completed level OT III. The webpage contains nothing copyrighted by a Scientology organization. It is an explanation of what OT III says and what that means, along with commentary by the author. Jon Atack is also the author of A Piece of Blue Sky, which is a history of Scientology from before its founding to after L. Ron Hubbard's death. At the above link, you can either purchase it, or read it in its entirety online.

If you are interested in Scientology, you will want to visit Operation Clambake, at xenu.net. It seems to be the most important central resource for information on the organization.

You may also want to visit the Lisa McPherson Memorial Page, which claims that "Lisa died needlessly at the hands of Scientology." Her case is truly a tragic one and she deserves to be remembered. The site has a great deal of information on her death. Related is The Lisa McPherson Trust, which has not only information about Lisa, but a very large archive of interviews, court transcripts, news reports, testimonials, and videos about Scientology.

Here's a Slashdot story last year on eBay removing auctions for e-meters based on the Church of Scientology DMCA copyright allegations, which is odd because Copyright law doesn't cover a physical device.

If there's anything else about Scientology you want to know, you will want to see AltReligionScientology.org, which contains a huge list of links to all the sites I don't have room to list here.

The DMCA is actually five separate modifications to copyright law. Its Title I is known for providing legal protection for "technological measures" (typically encryption) which prevent copying; this is the part that empowered the MPAA to sue over DeCSS, to name the best-known example.

That's not the part that concerns us here; Title II is its other major modification of copyright law and that's what we're dealing with. Title II created 17 U.S.C. Section 512, and we're specifically looking at our liability under paragraphs (c)(1)(A), which says we have to act "expeditiously to remove or disable access to the [infringing] material." Here's the U.S. Copyright Office's 18-page summary of the DMCA as a whole. If 18 pages is too long for you, here's the American Library Association's much quicker summary

Here's a list of resources on the DMCA, including the DMCA itself in PDF format. The EFF page on the DCMA seems to relate mostly to Title I, the anti-encryption-circumvention portion, but it's too good not to mention anyway.

Don't know who your Congressperson or Senators are? That's OK, now's as good a time as any to learn. Finding your Senators is easy, just go to Senate.gov. To find your Representative, you just need your zip code. You can use the form on the website to write them if you're lazy, but if you want your message to have more impact, print it out and send it in a real envelope. Anything's better than nothing, though.

When you write, you'll want to write something they'll read. Here are the ACLU's tips for writing to your Congressperson or Senators.

/[Aa]non([aiy]mo?u?s)? [KkCc]ow[ae]rd/ asks: "Remarkably few people have a working understanding of regular expressions. But, those that do know how useful they can be for searching text. Has anyone out there seen a large search engine (like Google) that will take regular expressions for queries? How about a newsgroup search engine?" Aside from the fact that many regular expressions read like snippets of line noise, they are the best thing I've seen for searches, and it's a lot easier than -adding +alot +of +search -terms.

Ergo2000 was the first of many to tell us that Google has acquired Deja. Or at least, whats left of it. Accoding to the announcement, they will reinstate posting, improve searching, and keep the full 500 million message archive since '95 online.

If you remember our Guiness Beer Really Sucks story, you'll recall that WIPO's rule has been "no sucks domains." There's a three-part test and if you pass any of the parts you're in the clear, but one of the silly gotchas about test number three is that Xsucks.com has repeatedly been ruled "identical or confusingly similar" to trademarkX. This makes no sense, of course. But the strange thing is that WIPO on Monday reversed itself. In one of the rare decisions awarded to the domain holder, the arbitration panel said that the owner of LockheedMartinSucks.com could keep his domain, because it was not confusingly similar to LockheedMartin.com. Um. What?

I have a problem with the whole notion of taking domains away to begin with. The only tune that corporate, capitalist American can sing is "the free market" -- except when it comes to the free market in domain names.

Real estate speculation? Great, it optimizes efficiency. Currency market speculation? Balances resources internationally and assures prosperity. But domain name speculation? You filthy cybersquatter!

Personally I could see this being useful in 1995, when companies were just waking up to the internet, but I think it's run its course. Any company in 2001 that hasn't registered its corporate name, and all its major products' names before making them public, is stupid and deserves to pay large sums of money to savvy entrepreneurs. In 2001, we're just seeing natural selection running its course. Bailing out stupidity is corporate welfare.

Anyway, the big picture is that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in adjudicating the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Protocol (UDRP), is trying to find a way to apply trademark law to the internet. The rules put in place ensured that there was to be no free market on "LockheedMartin.com" -- the company that owns the trademark on "LOCKHEED MARTIN" gets it, and others are only allowed to have it if they are doing something appropriate with it (not using it in "bad faith," to be precise).

WIPO makes its decisions based on the UDRP, but has a wide latitude in interpreting it. This is one of its problems, of course. The UDRP has a handful of fuzzy two-word clauses like "bad faith" and "legitimate interests"; WIPO's panelists can interpret them almost any way they want. Consistency is a prerequisite of justice, and randomly-administered justice is no justice at all.

But Monday, the two fuzzy words were "confusingly similar," namely, whether LockheedMartinSucks.com is confusingly similar to LockheedMartin.com. The decisions came down, and they may be the most startling display of WIPO's arbitrary arbitration.

As the decision states, Lockheed-Martin "relie[d] primarily on previous ICANN decisions that have found domain names that combine a trademark with the word 'sucks' to be confusingly similar to the trademark."

Lockheed probably thought it was on safe ground by doing so. The list of domains taken away for that reason was long: guinness-sucks.com, guinness-really-sucks.com, etc., wal-martsucks.com, cabelassucks.com, directlinesucks.com, dixonssucks.com, freeservesucks.com, natwestsucks.com, standardcharteredsucks.com, and wal-martcanadasucks.com, etc.

But Monday's decision, for once, told the truth:

"The disputed domain names are neither identical nor confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks, since no one would reasonably believe that Complainant operates a website that appends the word 'sucks' to its name and then uses it to criticize corporate America."

What took Captain Obvious so long to arrive?

The decision also notes that in the WalmartCanadaSucks.com decision, the only other case where the trademark-holder was told to take a hike, the sole panelist "expressed skepticism" about the confusing similarity of sucks, "but stopped just short of advocating a per se privilege exempting all 'sucks' domain names."

Likewise here; they make it clear that "no one could reasonably believe" sucks is confusing. And more interestingly -- they do not bother even to consider the other two parts of the three-part test. As soon as they decided that LockheedSucks was not Lockheed, that was it, the case was over.

But, unfortunately, I don't see any language that encourages future panelists to reach the same decision. This is an international body and they don't have to follow the almost-uniquely-American tradition of following precedent and being, you know, predictable. The next ten sucks sites might be taken away, for all anyone can tell. Or they might not. Sucks-sters will just have to hope they get the right panelist.

There were some good lines in this decision, by the way, that tell me that the panelists know what's what. "A website that functions for the exercise of free speech by its nature can not operate with bad faith intent." I like that. Kudos to panelists Foster and Sorkin.

And shame on panelist Wagoner, who was the dissenting voice.

Wagoner was embarrassingly honest in his outrage that the UDRP was being followed, for once. The implication of the majority decision, he complained, is that "the lack of 'confusing similarity' would prevent a finding that the Policy had been violated."

Well, yes: that's exactly how the Policy demands that WIPO rule. When your personal beliefs about what the UDRP should say, Mr. Wagoner, differ from what it actually does say, we'd hope you can figure out which to follow.

And among his reasons why "sucks" should be swallowed up by corporate America is that consumer eyeballs belong to corporate America. If you the consumer do a search for Lockheed, happen to notice that someone is criticizing it at a sucks domain, and then of your own free will and volition decide you want to click and see what the criticism is all about, your reckless websurfing has made you party to a filching of Lockheed's intellectual property:

"...it is likely (given the relative ease by which websites can be entered) that such users will choose to visit the sites, if only to satisfy their curiosity. Respondent will have accomplished his objective of diverting potential customers of Complainant to his websites by the use of domain names that are similar to Complainant's trademark."

The other two panelists smacked down that insipid argument explicitly, too, by the way, saying that once the searcher sees the sucks and nonsucks alternatives, he or she will exhibit a discernment and intelligence measurably higher than the average garden slug.

Someone needs to ask WIPO: what the hell is going on?

Trademark law (in the United States at least) exists for the citizen's protection, not the corporation's. The laws against dilution of trademarks exist so that you and I will not be confused. When the law, or in this case the arbitration rules, start to protect corporations' trademark interests over ours, something has gone wrong.

And domain names are the real estate of the internet. Obviously a sucks domain name is parody, and will not be confused with its target -- obviously. People who would criticize corporations have enough problems to worry about already with libel suits they can't afford to defend (win or lose). The last thing they need is a governing body that can take away their website on absurd charges of trademark violation.

And the second-to-last thing they need is a governing body that can't make up its damn mind.

alanjstr writes: "IDG News is reporting that Matsushita (aka Panasonic) has developed a floppy drive that will fit 32 MB onto a regular floppy disk. 'To increase the data capacity of a standard floppy, Matsushita's FD32MB system employs zone bit recording -- a system used to encode data onto hard disks and optical disc systems that more efficiently uses the space to record data.' The new drive also supports SuperDisks for 240 MB storage capacity. A Google Search for 'FD32MB' turned up lots of stuff in Japanese. More details and discussion are available here starting back last November." According to the article which starts that PC Market thread, "The new technology increases the number of sectors per track to between 36-53 sectors, compared with its current number of 18 sectors, and its memory capacity per track can be raised from 9.2KB-18.4KB to 27KB." Imagine what the cooler-than-heck Linux Router Project could do with these!

Aciel asks: "Does anyone know what happened to Freeboxen? For those who don't remember, Freeboxen was a free site where one could post old hardware and have it taken off your hands. Very cool, especially for building Beowulf clusters. Anyway, I found this Slashdot posting about it, from when it was originally announced, but going to the site turns up a 'Cannot find server.' A Google search for it reveals several cached pages, including one which provides the e-mail addresses of Freeboxen's owner, James Lincoln. But both e-mail addresses -and- a subsequent attempt replacing mindspring.com with earthlink.net returns messages from angry mailer-daemons. I did a 'whois freeboxen.com', and it turned up a phone number and address, but I'm not inclined to harass people in their homes and offices. Anyone know what happened to Freeboxen, then? If not, are there any other good old hardware swap sites out there?"

eclectro writes "The EFF representing 2600 has appealed the district court's decision that banned the posting of the DeCSS source code on websites. The case will be argued in April." EFF's brief makes good reading. If this is new to you, we've posted a few things about the DeCSS cases before.

A hefty handful of updates for you in tonight's Slashback, including: more information on how to make your plastic fish talk; more on the sounds-too-good-to-be-true Delux DVD player; and things that hopefully do not go boom in the woods. Also, shedding some more light on the Sun E10K review we ran a few days ago.

Make that fish say what you want it to say! vonmar writes: "Full details of the Boogie Bass Hack are now available, including schematics, sourcecode, and documentation. All the information should be there now for anyone with a soldering iron to make the Bass do their bidding!"

Here's the original story we ran about that crazy fish.

These are the things that go BOOM. Paul Jones of ibiblio writes: "To follow up on your nsa star hut story, take a look at this: a 40-year-old abandoned hydrogen bomb in eastern NC."

North Carolinians (Carolingians?) can sleep relatively easy though: according to the article, when a pair of hydrogren bombs went down with the plane which was carrying them, "Safety mechanisms designed to prevent unintended or unauthorized detonation served their function, and a historic nuclear catastrophe was averted. But published sources disagree on how close the people of Wayne County came to suffering fiery annihilation." Please don't retrieve this, anyone.

And EMlNEM writes with a cool addition as well: "Here are some pictures of the NSA station you had a story about."

Not so deluxe after all ... bluephone writes: "Well, it's been a while since the news of the Dulux DVD player hit Slashdot, and my question for my fellow /. inmates is can anyone post some FIRST HAND information about it? No more marketroid tripe, I'm talking about someone who ordered it, received it, played with it, etc. Was the company responsive? Did you actually get it? Is the playback quality good? Are the features promised actually there and functional? Currently, they claim to be out of stock, and will have more on the 15th of January, which could mena they've folded shop and run with the money, or that they sold like hotcakes. I want to know which it really is. A quick Google search revealed no actual post-testing reviews."

Adam Alexander writes: " Late in November, I read the ask slashdot article about the Dulux DVD/MP3/Game player and followed the link (http://www.gamedvdplayer.com) to purchase the item. I paid with PayPal (extremely hard to get a refund) and it turns out that I have never received the item, and although the company's web site is still up, they do not return phone calls or emails. I have set up a web site (http://oreo.donet.com/duluxhelp) for discussion between Dulux customers in order to trade information about (for example) ways to contact the company or success in getting refunds. I have a feeling that there may be many more Slashdot readers in the same position and I would like all of us to benefit from each other's experiences."

Well said. Who else can contribute words of wisdom (or chagrin) about what so far appears to be a non-deluxe player?

And now this newsflash with news ... on Flash! Peter Santangeli of Macromedia sent this email to the bugtraq mailing list, good reading for anyone interested in the Flash insecurity reported earlier.

As was posted earlier to BUGTRAQ, an issue has been discovered with the Macromedia Flash Player that shows a possible buffer overflow error when the player encounters a maliciously or incorrectly created SWF file. After an investigation, and consultation with the reporting engineer, Macromedia has determined the following:

• The data being accessed is located entirely in a dynamically allocated structure in the heap space of the application.
• The data access is limited to reading the information. At no time is the buffer in question ever written to. Neither the heap, nor the stack is written to during this processing, and at no time does this lead to the execution of arbitrary data as native instructions.

Given the above information, it is Macromedia's belief that the error in question, though unfortunate, does not constitute a significant security risk. The effects of this defect are limited to the crashing of the users client (denial of service).

On a personal note, I regret that the actual bug report did not reach the appropriate people at Macromedia in a timely manner. We do take security very seriously in the development of our products, and are looking in to mechanisms to ensure that this does not happen again. For a starter, we will be instituting a new email address by which these reports can be directly sent to the appropriate engineers.

Peter Santangeli
Vice President of Engineering, Flash and FreeHand
Macromedia Inc.

Credit where credit is due. Josh McCormick, who wrote this review on epinions.com of the heftily-priced Sun E10K server, was offered a call from Philip Ferreira, editor of Reviewboard Magazine, to discuss "what happened" with McCormick's review when a very similar review not crediting McCormick ran on the Reviewboard site, and was linked to by Slashdot (since removed, for reasons partly explained in this post from chabotc of Reviewboard). That message and the threads it spawned make clear what a big mess this was. Thanks to Josh for sticking up for his work. Here's his response to Reviewboard:

Phillip,

Considering the wild and numerous stories that were given to explain what has happened, you'll forgive me if I don't want to hear one more. I view the credibility of any explanation I would get as approaching zero.

Further, I pretty much already have what I wanted out of all of this. The article removed from your site (although it is still on the chabotc.com site), and recognition that I was the original author. There isn't much more that I can gain from having a conversation.

What I gained from this was an interesting story to share with my friends, and a better appreciation for what it takes to "prove" something online.

At this point, I'm satisified to drop it and go my seperate way.

Josh McCormick

keen writes "Deja.com is back to its old self again, after trying its luck with the annoying 'percision buying service' for far too long. Finally, no need to click through to usenet search." The buying advice section was snapped up by half.com, who will roll it out early next year. Their Usenet search is typically the second place I go when I see cryptic Linux error messages; someone else has always had the same problem and about half the time they got a decent response. (Here's the first place.)

Jack writes "Has anyone else noticed that the best search engine out there, Google, now generates links for some of its search results which point back to Google before redirecting you to the site's URL? I can't help thinking they'll be using this information to sell targeted search results and measure how effective it is. I guess they have to make a buck, but this could be the start of a very slippery slope. It's also interesting to see which search queries generate tracking results. For example, "Quake" generates them for every link." The monetization of Google proceeds...

Jack writes "Has anyone else noticed that the best search engine out there, Google, now generates links for some of its search results which point back to Google before redirecting you to the site's URL? I can't help thinking they'll be using this information to sell targeted search results and measure how effective it is. I guess they have to make a buck, but this could be the start of a very slippery slope. It's also interesting to see which search queries generate tracking results. For example, "Quake" generates them for every link." The monetization of Google proceeds...

cr0sh asks: "I recently bid and won (on Ebay) a set-top box that I am planning to hack. It is distributed by Liberate Technologies, Inc. (formerly Network Computer, Inc.), and appears (based on a Web search on Google) to be made by Acer (called the CyberTV). Liberate Technologies calls it the NT150 Endeavor System. I have found one other distributor - DEI - on whose page some specs were given. 133 MHz X5 processor (what is this? I am guessing an AMD 586/133), 8 MB RAM, 4MB Flash, lots of ports. The device I received appears to have the ethernet adapter, and not the 56K modem. I didn't receive any documentation or such. From what I have been able to find, the device apparently uses special signals embedded in the VBI of a broadcast signal to bring up Web pages from a Web site, and overlay them onto the broadcast signal, so that you can get an 'enhanced' TV experience. This is accomplished by software Liberate calls TV Navigator. I haven't found any info on the OS used, but I think it may be QNX. Liberate provides a site for development. I was told by the seller that supposedly you can hook up a hard drive and/or a floppy internally, based on information a tech at Liberate told him. I haven't had a chance to open the machine up to verify/find the headers to do such, so I don't know if they are intact or if there would be some soldering involved. Does anyone know anything more about this box, and how 'hackable' it is?"

Several readers have written in to tell us about this GeekPress story in which the popular and effective search engine Google is scammed by an adult site operator. Interesting story. Too bad it isn't true. "My basic conclusion," says Google's CTO, "is that the scam" -- not that I think it is a scam -- "didn't really 'work.'"

Google's advantage, of course, is that its page-ranking means that the Web sites you find are less likely to be affected by how many keywords they can cram in, and more by which other important sites are linking to them. The theory is that lame sites won't be linked-to by important sites, and that therefore they won't show up high in your search results. And the theory usually works pretty well, which is why Google is my preferred engine.

The GeekPress article says that a search on "Liv Tyler nude" has as its top results some links all going to the same site which has Liv Tyler (allegedly) nude. Well, OK then. If you think that's a problem.

Google's CTO Craig Silverstein comments that that particular search query doesn't, "as far as we can tell, have any good results -- in our spot check, for instance, we couldn't actually find any Web sites that show Liv Tyler in the nude. When there are no good results out there, Google's results can be somewhat arbitrary, so it's not particularly surprising this site was first."

When I randomly checked the names of more popular actresses, plus the word "nude," the supposed-scam in question didn't pull down any especially good hits.

This was confirmed by the adult site itself. When I e-mailed its representative, he claimed their ranking for more popular celebrities like Cindy Crawford and Pamela Anderson were way down the Google list: 22nd, 38th, and worse.

And, protesting the "scam" label, he pointed me to a good article on bridge pages. The technique they're using is a popular method of getting hits which -- as long as the destination pages bear relevance to the search terms, which they here do -- is in the gray area usually considered aggressive self-promotion. It's a trick more or less ignored by the search engines until it's combined with other less-savory tricks.

(That article, and most of searchenginewatch.com, makes for fascinating reading if you're interested in the arms race for your eyeballs being fought between engines and webmasters.)

Also, the adult site operator says his site has gotten only 400 hits a day from all the bridge pages they've set up. It's hard to argue that just a few hundred clicks over to Jane Doe nude represent an extraordinary hijacking of the search term "Jane Doe nude."

Google does refine their algorithm, which incidentally like all search engines' is kept secret to avoid giving Web-spammers an edge. You may remember last year's joke of the search "more evil than Satan" pointing (mistakenly, of course) to Microsoft's homepage. As their founders comment in the recent MIT Technology Review interview, this was a little embarrassing for them, and the engine was tweaked to fix it.

And Google's CTO isn't ruling out more tweaking in the future:

In any case, we know our scoring scheme isn't perfect -- even when the sites in question aren't trying to fool us -- and we're always working to improve it. Often the problem isn't, "Why did this bad site score high?" but rather, "Why did these other good sites score low?"

We're always looking at queries that give strange-looking results to get a better understanding of how our scoring can be improved. Whether the "xnude" queries will result in tweaks to our scoring, I can't say, but we'll certainly be adding them to the test cases we look at.

Short version: the arms race continues; Google still kicks butt.

Several readers have written in to tell us about this GeekPress story in which the popular and effective search engine Google is scammed by an adult site operator. Interesting story. Too bad it isn't true. "My basic conclusion," says Google's CTO, "is that the scam" -- not that I think it is a scam -- "didn't really 'work.'"

Google's advantage, of course, is that its page-ranking means that the Web sites you find are less likely to be affected by how many keywords they can cram in, and more by which other important sites are linking to them. The theory is that lame sites won't be linked-to by important sites, and that therefore they won't show up high in your search results. And the theory usually works pretty well, which is why Google is my preferred engine.

The GeekPress article says that a search on "Liv Tyler nude" has as its top results some links all going to the same site which has Liv Tyler (allegedly) nude. Well, OK then. If you think that's a problem.

Google's CTO Craig Silverstein comments that that particular search query doesn't, "as far as we can tell, have any good results -- in our spot check, for instance, we couldn't actually find any Web sites that show Liv Tyler in the nude. When there are no good results out there, Google's results can be somewhat arbitrary, so it's not particularly surprising this site was first."

When I randomly checked the names of more popular actresses, plus the word "nude," the supposed-scam in question didn't pull down any especially good hits.

This was confirmed by the adult site itself. When I e-mailed its representative, he claimed their ranking for more popular celebrities like Cindy Crawford and Pamela Anderson were way down the Google list: 22nd, 38th, and worse.

And, protesting the "scam" label, he pointed me to a good article on bridge pages. The technique they're using is a popular method of getting hits which -- as long as the destination pages bear relevance to the search terms, which they here do -- is in the gray area usually considered aggressive self-promotion. It's a trick more or less ignored by the search engines until it's combined with other less-savory tricks.

(That article, and most of searchenginewatch.com, makes for fascinating reading if you're interested in the arms race for your eyeballs being fought between engines and webmasters.)

Also, the adult site operator says his site has gotten only 400 hits a day from all the bridge pages they've set up. It's hard to argue that just a few hundred clicks over to Jane Doe nude represent an extraordinary hijacking of the search term "Jane Doe nude."

Google does refine their algorithm, which incidentally like all search engines' is kept secret to avoid giving Web-spammers an edge. You may remember last year's joke of the search "more evil than Satan" pointing (mistakenly, of course) to Microsoft's homepage. As their founders comment in the recent MIT Technology Review interview, this was a little embarrassing for them, and the engine was tweaked to fix it.

And Google's CTO isn't ruling out more tweaking in the future:

In any case, we know our scoring scheme isn't perfect -- even when the sites in question aren't trying to fool us -- and we're always working to improve it. Often the problem isn't, "Why did this bad site score high?" but rather, "Why did these other good sites score low?"

We're always looking at queries that give strange-looking results to get a better understanding of how our scoring can be improved. Whether the "xnude" queries will result in tweaks to our scoring, I can't say, but we'll certainly be adding them to the test cases we look at.

Short version: the arms race continues; Google still kicks butt.

Several readers have written in to tell us about this GeekPress story in which the popular and effective search engine Google is scammed by an adult site operator. Interesting story. Too bad it isn't true. "My basic conclusion," says Google's CTO, "is that the scam" -- not that I think it is a scam -- "didn't really 'work.'"

Google's advantage, of course, is that its page-ranking means that the Web sites you find are less likely to be affected by how many keywords they can cram in, and more by which other important sites are linking to them. The theory is that lame sites won't be linked-to by important sites, and that therefore they won't show up high in your search results. And the theory usually works pretty well, which is why Google is my preferred engine.

The GeekPress article says that a search on "Liv Tyler nude" has as its top results some links all going to the same site which has Liv Tyler (allegedly) nude. Well, OK then. If you think that's a problem.

Google's CTO Craig Silverstein comments that that particular search query doesn't, "as far as we can tell, have any good results -- in our spot check, for instance, we couldn't actually find any Web sites that show Liv Tyler in the nude. When there are no good results out there, Google's results can be somewhat arbitrary, so it's not particularly surprising this site was first."

When I randomly checked the names of more popular actresses, plus the word "nude," the supposed-scam in question didn't pull down any especially good hits.

This was confirmed by the adult site itself. When I e-mailed its representative, he claimed their ranking for more popular celebrities like Cindy Crawford and Pamela Anderson were way down the Google list: 22nd, 38th, and worse.

And, protesting the "scam" label, he pointed me to a good article on bridge pages. The technique they're using is a popular method of getting hits which -- as long as the destination pages bear relevance to the search terms, which they here do -- is in the gray area usually considered aggressive self-promotion. It's a trick more or less ignored by the search engines until it's combined with other less-savory tricks.

(That article, and most of searchenginewatch.com, makes for fascinating reading if you're interested in the arms race for your eyeballs being fought between engines and webmasters.)

Also, the adult site operator says his site has gotten only 400 hits a day from all the bridge pages they've set up. It's hard to argue that just a few hundred clicks over to Jane Doe nude represent an extraordinary hijacking of the search term "Jane Doe nude."

Google does refine their algorithm, which incidentally like all search engines' is kept secret to avoid giving Web-spammers an edge. You may remember last year's joke of the search "more evil than Satan" pointing (mistakenly, of course) to Microsoft's homepage. As their founders comment in the recent MIT Technology Review interview, this was a little embarrassing for them, and the engine was tweaked to fix it.

And Google's CTO isn't ruling out more tweaking in the future:

In any case, we know our scoring scheme isn't perfect -- even when the sites in question aren't trying to fool us -- and we're always working to improve it. Often the problem isn't, "Why did this bad site score high?" but rather, "Why did these other good sites score low?"

We're always looking at queries that give strange-looking results to get a better understanding of how our scoring can be improved. Whether the "xnude" queries will result in tweaks to our scoring, I can't say, but we'll certainly be adding them to the test cases we look at.

Short version: the arms race continues; Google still kicks butt.

4/3PI*R^3 writes "At my fellow UM System University, the University of Missouri Rolla Dr. Ming Leu, Wei Zhang, and their fellow mechanical engineers invented a device that constructs a 3-D model out of ice in a matter of hours, using a technique they call rapid-freeze prototyping. Article in Discover. At last we can finally make strawberry-banana swirl popsicles!!!!"

Bingo Foo asks: "Many moons ago, I saw an article on some pretty neato sounding PowerPC daughterboards made to work with Intel Linux. To this day, I have yet to see a review of them (Say it ain't so, Ars...), or even a reasonably detailed explanation of how the cross-compiling and job execution work. In a somewhat exhaustive Web search, I found more questions and speculation than answers. All of the specific applications mentioned are rendering and other 'dumb' SIMD processes. It's difficult to tell just how versatile these boards might be. Has anyone shelled out the $6k for one of these things and are they willing to share their experiences with the rest of the world? In particular, I wonder if this might come in handy for some Monte Carlo codes that we run where I work, where raw flops are more important than communication or memory, and the parallelism is MIMD."

"Just an explanation of the programming/compiling/execution process would be nice, and inquiries sent to the manufacturer have resulted in sales-type replies which weren't technically helpful."

Interested in a free domain for your open-source project? Huh, are ya? "Too bad, sucker," says the .cx registrar. On the other hand, you can drink beer (or sarsparilla) and talk tech with folks smarter than your average bear, create poetry using such fine poetic-sounding things as "Python" and "Java," and even let other people know the names of those who you would call Spammers. Read on, if the gist is really not enough.

See, what we really meant was ... From the inimitable jamie: In February we reported that the .cx registrar was offering free domains to open-source projects. Now, their Board of Directors claims this is "inconsistent with the basic principals [sic] of fairness...this policy has been cancelled." Their FAQ has been changed from this to this accordingly. The board meeting promises "existing registrants will be 'grandfathered-in' and a new second level registry for the oss community will be established." Presumably that means new applicants will get YourOpenSourceProject.free.cx or something. Props to jmason and TBTF for the above links.

LinuxBierwanderungenrundeninkreisen, oder? One of the cool things about Free software is that there's an attitude of joviality and conviviality among its users and developers -- as evidenced by the recurring Linuxbierwangerungen, as reported in Slashdot last week. Even the WSJ notices, evidently: alanw writes "This article is fairly accurate, although we were mostly drinking real ale, not lager."

The article also mentions the oh-so-intriguing idea of simultaneous, net-linked Bierwanderungen on different continents. I vote for the mountains of Maine, New Hampshire or Tennessee as good trial U.S. locations -- if you know any organizers, make sure they leave comments below about a U.S. Bierwanderung!

Opting in, Sir? Opting out? Headphones, Sir? Red Wine? White wine? discHead writes "The Mail Abuse Prevention System has announced that a temporary restraining order filed to prevent them from listing Harris Interactive in the Realtime Blackhole List has been denied."

So long as no one is required to abide by the list that MAPS creates of mail abusers, would a restraining order preventing them from listing a spammer (by their definition) ever work? I rather hope not.

No, not the envelope with "those" pictures, the envelope with the winners! Tim McNerney writes: "The second round winners in the Software Carpentry competition have been announ ced. Though the test harness category got dropped in the process, the config, build and track categories all have winners along with judge's commentary. Next step is to choosing developers to implement the winners." And speaking of lucky winners (you may not already be a winner, in this case), at0m writes "The Haiku Generator Challenge has been completed, and the results have been posted. For those who are not familiar with the contest, the goal was to create a program that used a user-inputted RDF file and created three lines with 5, 7, and 5 syllables respectively. To see the winning entries, visit the challenge page. dotcomma has also announced a new, less difficult challenge, which can be found here."

Yoje writes: "Someone's probably already submitted this, but it looks like sometime in the next 30 days Yahoo! will switch from inktomi to Google for search requests. More attention for Google is always good. :)" I'm not sure Google strictly needs attention, but capsteve and others pointed out Google's own press release which says Google has now indexed over a billion pages. (Note: around half of these are not fully indexed.)

Yoje writes: "Someone's probably already submitted this, but it looks like sometime in the next 30 days Yahoo! will switch from inktomi to Google for search requests. More attention for Google is always good. :)" I'm not sure Google strictly needs attention, but capsteve and others pointed out Google's own press release which says Google has now indexed over a billion pages. (Note: around half of these are not fully indexed.)

localman writes: "In an ongoing legacy of tormenting Web site owners, Mattel Inc. is threatening legal action against my wife and I for planning to make a non-business all-girl video game clan site entitled thebarbies.com. Apparently they have a long history of censoring people. I've put up a page about the dispute, but what else can an individual do against a corporation?" Write a story? Seriously -- this is a standard trademark domain dispute, it's happened many times and will continue to happen -- maybe someone should write an FAQ for legitimate domain holders who get The Letter.

Check out the Red Hat press release running at LWN, or the news article at techweb about Google's 4000 Node Linux Box. Both articles are basically Red Hat commercials, but there's some interesting bits like the fact that they have a terebyte index of 300 million Web pages, and that they might expand their cluster to 6000 nodes in the future.

ChrisUK writes "Google seem to have single-handedly brought html to WAP devices. WAP/Palm users can log on to www.google.com on their devices, and search through Google's web database. Furthermore, the pages that are linked to can be jumped to, and will be converted to wml on the fly. More details can be found here."

thelonius writes "According to this press release, Google is traipsing down that questionable path of content filtering. They are partnering with SurfWatch, anyone know their track record for overzealous or politically skewed blocking? Let's hope Google deploys this as an option which can be turned off..." I expect they will. SurfWatch is one of the few censorware packages that blocks by keyword-match on URL; e.g. this anti-pornography page is blindly blocked because of its URL.

Well, we hope you had a good April Fool's here at Slashdot; we're done with weird translations for the day. It's been an interesting day online, from Andrew Leonard's Salon piece to the Google MentalPlex to the l33t.freshmeat.net post over at Freshmeat, and of course, the Advogato joke on Andover. Also check out the 'Windows Games' post on Linux Games. Special thanks to Rinkworks and Babelfish for translations. Personally, my favorite April Fool's site on the entire web can be found here. Oh, you mean it's not? Oh, dear...

Alex Bischoff asks: "I will likely be buying a cell phone within the next six months. And, while there seem to be half a million sites reviewing hardware, I can't find even one that does reviews of cell phones! Now, I've tried Google, of course, but all I can find are cell phone service providers and reviews on "super cell phones" -- that is, cell phones with built-in PDAs and such. I already have a Palm Pilot, so all I want is a "regular" cell phone. Can anyone recommend any sites that review cell phones, or offer his/her opinions on brands to buy and features to look for? "

Mitch Connard was one of several to note that "Google now has a BSD search to go along with its Linux search. The search seems very accurate." I never played with the Linux version, but from what I can gather this means that your searches are restricted to BSD specific sites. Very handy.

EasyTarget writes, "TopClick aims to be a search engine that is very privacy respecting, no cookies, banner ads or other data harvesting. It uses a common protocol to the Google search engine that prevents session tracking or user identification. Is this the start of mainstream companies that view strong privacy as a 'product' in itself?"

schmofo writes "Today is the first day since Dec. 28, 888 (12-28-888) to have only even digits in its numerical format (02-02-2000). This is quite an event, and complements the last odd day for as long, which occurred back in November." It's also Groundhog day; take a look at Google's logo o' the day. Cute! Update: There is an error above as submitted, which I should have caught: should have been 08/28/888, 12/28/888.

Anonymous Coward writes "Space-Time Systems in Malvern, England, is now offering computers with GNU/Hurd pre-installed in parallell with the Debian GNU/Linux system. Please see this page for more information." Warning: the Space-Time Systems site loaded slowly when I checked it this morning. You may want to use the (slightly out-of-date) Google cached version for the moment.

Jason Eric Pierce writes "I just noticed something interesting while using Google, considering how much it has been praised here by those that tend to denounce software patents: 'Unlike other current generation search engines, which rely heavily on keywords or meta-search technology to find information, Google offers an advanced patent-pending technology called PageRank(TM) to deliver the most relevant results. PageRank ensures that the most important, relevant pages always come up first and that your users will always find what they are looking for.' I love Google, but I hate the idea of patenting a search algorithm/implementation." Good point. Thoughts?

GeHa & others called our attention to the new AltaVista main page that went live late Saturday night (EDT). Apparently the formal kickoff for the redesign is scheduled for Monday and will include a live Lauryn Hill Webcast. I wonder what entertainer Google would choose to help publicize a major site change. Any ideas? UPDATE by RM Sunday morning: the new page is aparently on again, off again until the formal Monday launch. IMO it's not as useful as the old one even though AV is making much noise about it.

randombit wrote in to say that Google has a new specialized Linux search. As an aside, I keep getting conspiracy emails about Google having banner ads. Never ceases to amaze me how worked up people can get about some things. Anyhoo, I did several searches with mixed success, but it seems to do a pretty good job of searching for Linux stuff.

pq writes "The New York Time is running a mainstream review of Google, and how it plans to remain free of banner ads. (NYT, free registration, blah blah.) " Nice little bit - with a bit of the history to the site and what they plan to do - and check out the other jobs at Google. Head Chef - maybe I wouldn't have to eat packet o' sauce and noodles all the time.

dpavlin writes "Google, my favourite search engine has came out of beta testing. Press release is also online. " Google's just so darn pretty.

dpavlin writes "Google, my favourite search engine has came out of beta testing. Press release is also online. " Google's just so darn pretty.

EtherSnoot writes "Google just got $25 Million in funding from some Internet Big-Wigs. I guess there going big time. Awesome to see such a cool search engine getting the bucks. The article is here. " Wow-they've got both Sequoia and Kleiner Perkins for VC funding. Excellent-I'm glad to see they are getting what they deserve.

Augie De Blieck Jr. writes "Google.com has just added a bunch of information to its site, including job listings, company info, and general Google FAQ. I think it's the best search engine out there already and it's still only in BETA release. " I've noticed that the "Cached" version of Slashdot is from april 15, but besides that its looking good. I've had pretty good luck with google.

korc writes "Looks like Google has gone from it's rather long alpha stage to Beta. Looks like they expanded their pages and hey, they're hiring! " Also amusing to me is that their cached version of Slashdot is from October. But it is all running on Linux.

Vryl sent this latest Salon article our way. It's a well-written story about Google.com a new search engine, brought to us by a couple of Stanford grad students (sound familar?). However, the cool part-besides being run off of a Linux box-is how well it searches, and the relevancy of the returned pages. Check it out.

cashman73 writes "Most Slashdot readers are probably familiar with Google's book scanning project, a collaboration with several major universities to digitize works of literature, science, and art. Google may have been beat to the punch this time -- about a decade ago, Carnegie Mellon University embarked on a project to scan books into digital format, to be made available online. Today, according to new reports, they now have a collection of 1.5 million books, the equivalent of a typical university library, available online."