Slashdot Mirror

HERE IS THE DIRECT LINK : (Doesn't require you to log in!) Thank you, Google News!

My favorite part: Last week, Microsoft raised its revenue forecast for fiscal 2004 by about $1 billion. At the same time the company also said it had no plans to spend any of its $49 billion cash on major acquisitions or increase dividends, despite recent rumors.

Now, If I'm reading this article correctly, they are indirectly affecting their positive cashflow 'problem' by increasing R&D. The article says that Microsoft expects revenue to increase 6-9% (of total revenue) in 2004; They are going to spend 8% more on R&D (8% more than R&D expenses in 2003)... So this looks like one way that Microsoft is going to slow down their positive cashflow. I can't see anything bad coming from Microsoft spending more on R This should be beneficial to end-users as long as MS doesn't spend all this additional research money finding better ways to make it difficult to pirate Windows.

The NYT is running a short piece on the growing phenomenon of people who, solely out of necessity and not out of any real love of computers, have been forced to become tech-heads.

As consumer electronics proliferate and consumers grow increasingly disenchanted with technical support operations (which routinely charge for calls), many people are discovering that whether they want to or not, they are developing more than a little technical proficiency. Some, like Mr. Marcuse, become virtual experts. But many of these accidental techies learn only as much as they absolutely must...

Phyllis LaBaw, 45, associate athletic director at the University of South Florida in Tampa, is seldom away from her computer. As a result, she has grown self-reliant over the years without having attended a single computer-related class, she said. "You start spending time, and you're going to get to the point that eventually you're going to learn how to fix what you've botched up."

Still, for all the time they invest, most self-taught technicians would rather be doing something else.

Here's an alternate link:

http://homepage.mac.com/monickels/techjob.html

And the full text:

By Grant Barrett @ World New York

This article by the New York Times suggests that people are becoming technically adept by necessity, and that, as happened with radios and automobiles, eventually all technology will take care of itself and be as mindless to operate as toasters are today.

I see that day as decades off. Computers are still complex to make, complex to learn, complex to integrate with other gadgets. More importantly, they still have more than one knob or lever. Until that day of machine self-reliance, I see a golden opportunity: an under-served market waiting for the ambitious to step in.

The following is a small excerpt of a manuscript, modified to suit this topic.

...

Technical Self-Employment Is A Fat Paycheck Waiting to Be PocketedBy Grant Barrett @ World New York

This article by the New York Times suggests that people are becoming technically adept by necessity, and that, as happened with radios and automobiles, eventually all technology will take care of itself and be as mindless to operate as toasters are today.

I see that day as decades off. Computers are still complex to make, complex to learn, complex to integrate with other gadgets. More importantly, they still have more than one knob or lever. Until that day of machine self-reliance, I see a golden opportunity: an under-served market waiting for the ambitious to step in.

The following is a small excerpt of a manuscript, modified to suit this topic.

...

Technical Self-Employment Is A Fat Paycheck Waiting to Be Pocketed

Last year, at a Christmas party held by a client of mine at a very nice restaurant in Manhattan, I ran into a friend of a friend. I don't know him well, but we've socialized once or twice, and have had solid geek conversations in the past. He does Active Directory management for big corporations.

I should say, he used to do that. He's been unemployed now for more than a year.

After we shook hands I could see his face change from a friendly howdy-do. He dropped down into commiseration mode: the corners of his mouth drooped, his head ducked, he took a Hapsburg stance--his feet angled, his left foot perpendicular to his right, heel against arch, his torso yawed a few degrees off center, his hands lightly on his hips--and waited expectantly.

I knew what he wanted. I make my living with private computer consulting: client-site tech support, mostly, but pretty much any of the little computer-related tasks small businesses have. I knew he wanted to talk about the tech business. And he wanted me to start, so I complied. "How's business?" I asked.

He jumped in according to the script. "Oh, it's not been going well at all. Awful. I've been out of work. I can't find anything. How're you doing?" He anticipated a long bitch session of headhunter mistreatment, interview mishaps, finicky clients, resume failure. He relished the chance.

"It's great," I said. "I've got more business than I can handle. I'm giving it away. I've probably handed off or turned down enough business in the last six months to employ another person full-time. In fact, I've just turned over a second $30,000-a-year piece of business to another tech so I could concentrate on other clients."

He looked at me in amazement. His eyes bugged out. I saw doubt, then self-doubt, there, and eventually he just walked away.

My theory: If you are reasonably adept at using or setting up a computer, there's no good reason to be unemployed.

Forget the boom-time Nineties. They're gone. I'm sorry.

This article by the New York Times suggests that people are becoming technically adept by necessity, and that, as happened with radios and automobiles, eventually all technology will take care of itself and be as mindless to operate as toasters are today.

I see that day as decades off. Computers are still complex to make, complex to learn, complex to integrate with other gadgets. More importantly, they still have more than one knob or lever. Until that day of machine self-reliance, I see a golden opportunity: an under-served market waiting for the ambitious to step in.

The following is a small excerpt of a manuscript, modified to suit this topic.

...

Technical Self-Employment Is A Fat Paycheck Waiting to Be Pocketed

Last year, at a Christmas party held by a client of mine at a very nice restaurant in Manhattan, I ran into a friend of a friend. I dont know him well, but weve socialized once or twice, and have had solid geek conversations in the past. He does Active Directory management for big corporations.

I should say, he used to do that. Hes been unemployed now for more than a year.

After we shook hands I could see his face change from a friendly howdy-do. He dropped down into commiseration mode: the corners of his mouth drooped, his head ducked, he took a Hapsburg stancehis feet angled, his left foot perpendicular to his right, heel against arch, his torso yawed a few degrees off center, his hands lightly on his hipsand waited expectantly.

I knew what he wanted. I make my living with private computer consulting: client-site tech support, mostly, but pretty much any of the little computer-related tasks small businesses have. I knew he wanted to talk about the tech business. And he wanted me to start, so I complied. Hows business? I asked.

He jumped in according to the script. Oh, its not been going well at all. Awful. Ive been out of work. I cant find anything. Howre you doing? He anticipated a long bitch session of headhunter mistreatment, interview mishaps, finicky clients, resume failure. He relished the chance.

Its great, I said. Ive got more business than I can handle. Im giving it away. Ive probably handed off or turned down enough business in the last six months to employ another person full-time. In fact, Ive just turned over a second $30,000-a-year piece of business to another tech so I could concentrate on other clients.

He looked at me in amazement. His eyes bugged out. I saw doubt, then self-doubt, there, and eventually he just walked away.

My theory: If you are reasonably adept at using or setting up a computer, theres no good reason to be unemployed.

Forget the boom-time Nineties. Theyre gone. Im sorry. I really am. It was a fun ride, but the roller coaster is closed and the you must be this tall sign has been replaced with Tornado fencing topped with razor wire.

This is a hard lesson to learn, even this far into the recession and this long past the bubble. In posts on Slashdot, in discussions on Usenet, in many conversations with professional peers, particularly those in New York, London and San Francisco, I find again and again that the main barrier to re-entry in the work force for many peoplenot just technically-oriented folksis a reluctance to admit that things will never be quite what they were. Its pride, mostly: they have difficulty reducing their expectations.

Boom-time paychecks are no longer. They were gold-rush prices in a sellers market and bear no relationship to the current reality. If you want to work for a large corporation, you will have to take a sizable pay cut. You are not being cheated: the prices go according to the market, and the market is awash with qualified candidates.

When working full-time for companies, you can no longer expect to learn part of your job after being hired. You need to know it before. Technical skills acquisition is now more somethin

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/25/technology/25DSL .html

More articles:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2003/07/25/BU143220.DTL&type=busin ess
From which quotes: "... SBC's monthly wholesale fees were between $32.50 and $39 per subscriber. At that price, he said, his clients were unable to compete against SBC when the additional cost of Internet service and modems is factored in."

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/business/638193 1.htm

http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413, 87~11271~1532530,00.html

It's high time DSL prices fell so that I can get my $15/month - unlimited download - dedicated IP - T1!!! (then hook an 801 router and be peddling th e bandwidth to the neighbors... )

pdf in case of slashdotting

google link

Read the story at the Atlanta Journal Constitiution or the NY Times.

story

hehe, and it works with that partner:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/24/technology/circu its/24mess.html?ex=1059624000&en=5552cf1240514e43& ei=5062&partner=REGISTRATIONBLOWS

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/24/technology/circu its/24mess.html?ex=1059624000&en=5552cf1240514e43& ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

According to this article, Japan's population in 2050 will be half of what it is today (120M to 60M). That will make room for the robots, avoiding unpleasant alternatives.

Maybe your grandkids will be lucky and get into the India's future version of the H1B program to encourage tech workers to move and work there. :)

Seriously, there will always be a need for a highly skilled and highly educated workforce.

In case you're interested, here are some more links about this and other related issues that we have seen before.

Leaked: IBM Execs Urge Moving Jobs Offshore in Internal Teleconference

An internal recording of an IBM teleconference about moving jobs offshore was leaked (Google) to the New York Times by an upset employee. From the article: '...under increasing pressure to cut costs and build global supply networks... I.B.M. needed to accelerate its efforts to move white-collar, often high-paying, jobs overseas even though that might create a backlash among politicians and its own employees. "Our competitors are doing it and we have to do it," said Tom Lynch, I.B.M.'s director for global employee relations. He also said that 3 million service jobs were expected to shift to foreign workers by 2015 (based on a Forrester Research report, which represents about 2 percent of all American jobs) and that I.B.M. should move some of its jobs now done in the United States, including software design jobs, to India and other countries. Oracle plans to increase its jobs in India to 6,000 from 3,200, while Microsoft plans to double the size of its software development operation in India to 500 by late this year. Accenture has 4,400 workers in India, China, Russia and the Philippines.' Critics say 'schools will stop producing the computer engineers and programmers we need for the future' as a result of these moves. Listen to the IBM recording in Real format (direct link at pnm://audio.nytimes.com/audiosrc/2003/07/21/busine ss/20030722jobs.audio.rm). More at the SJMN, Inquirer, and CNN/Reuters. Slashdot has discussed Global competition, offshore outsourcing, lower cost replacement workers and the ensuing legal turmoil before.

To paraphrase from the movie Jerry Maguire:
It's not technology friends, It's technology business.

Maybe your grandkids will be lucky and get into the India's future version of the H1B program to encourage tech workers to move and work there. :)

Seriously, there will always be a need for a highly skilled and highly educated workforce.

In case you're interested, here are some more links about this and other related issues that we have seen before.

Leaked: IBM Execs Urge Moving Jobs Offshore in Internal Teleconference

An internal recording of an IBM teleconference about moving jobs offshore was leaked (Google) to the New York Times by an upset employee. From the article: '...under increasing pressure to cut costs and build global supply networks... I.B.M. needed to accelerate its efforts to move white-collar, often high-paying, jobs overseas even though that might create a backlash among politicians and its own employees. "Our competitors are doing it and we have to do it," said Tom Lynch, I.B.M.'s director for global employee relations. He also said that 3 million service jobs were expected to shift to foreign workers by 2015 (based on a Forrester Research report, which represents about 2 percent of all American jobs) and that I.B.M. should move some of its jobs now done in the United States, including software design jobs, to India and other countries. Oracle plans to increase its jobs in India to 6,000 from 3,200, while Microsoft plans to double the size of its software development operation in India to 500 by late this year. Accenture has 4,400 workers in India, China, Russia and the Philippines.' Critics say 'schools will stop producing the computer engineers and programmers we need for the future' as a result of these moves. Listen to the IBM recording in Real format (direct link at pnm://audio.nytimes.com/audiosrc/2003/07/21/busine ss/20030722jobs.audio.rm). More at the SJMN, Inquirer, and CNN/Reuters. Slashdot has discussed Global competition, offshore outsourcing, lower cost replacement workers and the ensuing legal turmoil before.

To paraphrase from the movie Jerry Maguire:
It's not technology friends, It's technology business.

Maybe your grandkids will be lucky and get into the India's future version of the H1B program to encourage tech workers to move and work there. :)

Seriously, there will always be a need for a highly skilled and highly educated workforce.

In case you're interested, here are some more links about this and other related issues that we have seen before.

Leaked: IBM Execs Urge Moving Jobs Offshore in Internal Teleconference

An internal recording of an IBM teleconference about moving jobs offshore was leaked (Google) to the New York Times by an upset employee. From the article: '...under increasing pressure to cut costs and build global supply networks... I.B.M. needed to accelerate its efforts to move white-collar, often high-paying, jobs overseas even though that might create a backlash among politicians and its own employees. "Our competitors are doing it and we have to do it," said Tom Lynch, I.B.M.'s director for global employee relations. He also said that 3 million service jobs were expected to shift to foreign workers by 2015 (based on a Forrester Research report, which represents about 2 percent of all American jobs) and that I.B.M. should move some of its jobs now done in the United States, including software design jobs, to India and other countries. Oracle plans to increase its jobs in India to 6,000 from 3,200, while Microsoft plans to double the size of its software development operation in India to 500 by late this year. Accenture has 4,400 workers in India, China, Russia and the Philippines.' Critics say 'schools will stop producing the computer engineers and programmers we need for the future' as a result of these moves. Listen to the IBM recording in Real format (direct link at pnm://audio.nytimes.com/audiosrc/2003/07/21/busine ss/20030722jobs.audio.rm). More at the SJMN, Inquirer, and CNN/Reuters. Slashdot has discussed Global competition, offshore outsourcing, lower cost replacement workers and the ensuing legal turmoil before.

To paraphrase from the movie Jerry Maguire:
It's not technology friends, It's technology business.

Once all IT jobs are move offshore, losing weight and getting into shape will come quite naturally; it's difficult to eat when you have no income.

This trend has nothing to do with free software. Expensive, proprietary software is good for its owners, not its developers.

The off-shoring trend is all about the big companies discovering the global infrastructure and a large enough talent pool in the third world to allow cost savings by moving coding jobs. Didn't you notice that Microsoft is one of the companies that is off-shoring development? Listen to the audiotape linked from the NYT article. The IBM HR guy specifically cites the competitive challenge of Microsoft's directive that every one of Microsoft's departments should off-shore some project.

India will soon be full of .Net coders. Your future is not safe with Microsoft, or HP, or IBM. Your future, if it's in IT, may require you to stay clear of the multinationals and in fact try to compete against them, or around them, with nimbleness and with the advantages of the U.S. infrastructure. And one of those advantages is access to free software that can serve as a robust, but low-cost, platform for your development.

Try reading this and tell me that the current direction of the Bush admin is just A-O-K.

And lay off the carbohydrates too. This might start a flame war (Atkins diet arguments and such.) You should lay of the bread, chips, orange juice, and other things that have a lot of carbs. This stuff gets absorbed by your body and makes you fat. Actual fat is more or less just passing through and makes it into the toilet with your centrum multivitamin.

Cutting back on the carbohydrates and stepping up on the exercise is really what makes the difference.

Now, would anyone with a better understanding of dietary values care to correct me?

Sorta, kinda. Fat definitely does not "just pass through" in any sense. It's actually easier to digest and goes more directly to your flab. However the Atkins theory is that severely restricting carbohydrate consumption throws the body into a different metabolic state, where weight loss becomes much easier.

I've been following this lately, because some interesting data is now coming out. It turns out that all the physicians and nutrionists who have been mocking Atkins as pseudo-science for the past 30 years or so, did not have any actual scientific results to back up their criticisms--just common knowledge and assumptions. Assumptions which completely ignored what was being learned about endocrinology.

I think there's going to a real shit-storm within the next 5 years, because so much of what we've been told by the establishment (iow USDA and AHA in the US) was based on mere assumption but presented as science. And it's beginning to look like it was wrong--that the food pyramid with its big base in carbs (grains) is a recipe for obesity and Type II diabetes.

All through my 20s and 30s I practiced (mostly) the low-fat high-carb recommendations, and managed to stay pretty active overall. I always thought that Atkins was some kind of fringe quack, based on what I read. But now that the truth is coming out, there is no evidence that Atkins doesn't work, and never was. Where it has been studied recently, the data that is coming out suggests that it might work after all. And by work, I don't mean just rapid weight loss--I mean rapid weight loss, while increasing HDL, without increasing LDL, and none of the other dire health problems predicted by mainstream nutritional theory.

Just so you know this is not an ill-informed rant, here are a few references:

Here's a decent primer on more current nutrional thinking.

This article from the New York Times Magazine was one of the better ones, because it dug deeply enough to uncover the original gap in the science and the way it was glossed over for political expediency. Unfortunately, the article is old enough that it's in the for-pay archives. However, a quick google search for the title turns up a number of web sites with copies. For instance, here, here, here, here, and a pdf here.

There are other articles I've seen within the past 2 years that make what seem to me to be good solid scientific points, but I can't remember the reference. FYI, my interest all started when I read a small AP blurb in a newspaper about a nutrional researcher who got the idea to locate and examine the results of all the studies of the Atkins diet, then discovered that there were no such studies!

Our dear friend David Boies has said:

"It's not necessary to resolve the I.B.M. case before resolving - or litigating, if it comes to that - the issues with end users."

SCO could definitely make it unpleasant for many people. I hope IBM squishes them before this gets out of hand.

For those who don't want to register w/ NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/technology/circu its/17next.html?ex=1059019200&en=ec2de92bc79967dd& ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

or

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/technology/circu its/17next.html?ex=1059019200&en=ec2de92bc79967dd& ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

For those who don't want to register w/ NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/technology/circu its/17next.html?ex=1059019200&en=ec2de92bc79967dd& ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

or

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/technology/circu its/17next.html?ex=1059019200&en=ec2de92bc79967dd& ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Apparently basic computer literacy isn't a requirement for doing technical reporting on MSN. The examples given are just silly.

They complain that a search for "flowers" mostly returns commercial sites, not information on gardening tips. What is Google supposed to do, read your mind to determine your real intention? "Flowers" might mean you want to buy some flowers, look at pictures of flowers, get information growing your own flowers, buy some flower seeds, or be looking for a company or person with the "Flowers" name. Useless. However, if you try the crazy idea of asking for what you want, amazingly you're much more likely to get the results you want. Interested in gardening tips? Don't search for "flowers", instead search for "gardening tips". Oooh, look, lots of useful links. Interesting in flower gardening tips specifically? Unsurprisingly, "flower gardening tips" returns a slightly different set of relevant links.

Searching for a product's model number doesn't return reviews? Again, if you want a review, maybe you should ask for a review. Sure enough, "apex ad1200" primarily returns places to buy the DVD player, but just adding review to the search term returns useful results. (Yes, Dealtime does jump to the top of the list, but that page does have several reviews on it.)

Oh no, search for "apple" doesn't return any information on artist Fiona Apple for many pages. Maybe you should actually search for "fiona apple"? Don't remember her first name? Try "apple female artist" or apple female musician" which return some good pointers (notably to her first name, which will return even better results.

"apple" doesn't get you information on the fruit? Well, step one is search refinement. Prior to Google people spent lots of time refining searches. Just because Google often does what you want doesn't mean you'll never need to refine your search. So, let's be a bit more specific. Let's try "apple fruit" Viola, hits on the fruit. Want to learn about growing apples? How about "growing apples" Wow, more good hits.

Google doesn't index sites with non-public archives (like the New York Times ? Well, duh. They also don't sneak into your house and index your tax returns. By requiring registration to access their archives, the New York Times has effectively declined to be indexed. Expecting Google to circumvent that decision is stupid.

On the subject of Google not magically indexing everything, we get to the extremely silly complaint that doing research using Google tends to steer people only to online sources, not books. Again, duh. Similarly, if you use your local library's card catalog (or more typically, online catalog), it will only return books and magazines, not web pages. The points to two things. First, if you're doing Real Research, limiting yourself to a single source (be it online or in a library) is just dumb. Second, the internet is rising in importance, and perhaps publishing books online is a good idea.

Google is doing so well that lots of people are interested in taking potshots at it. I'm all in favor of people challenging the status quo, but try to have some real complaints.

Apparently basic computer literacy isn't a requirement for doing technical reporting on MSN. The examples given are just silly.

They complain that a search for "flowers" mostly returns commercial sites, not information on gardening tips. What is Google supposed to do, read your mind to determine your real intention? "Flowers" might mean you want to buy some flowers, look at pictures of flowers, get information growing your own flowers, buy some flower seeds, or be looking for a company or person with the "Flowers" name. Useless. However, if you try the crazy idea of asking for what you want, amazingly you're much more likely to get the results you want. Interested in gardening tips? Don't search for "flowers", instead search for "gardening tips". Oooh, look, lots of useful links. Interesting in flower gardening tips specifically? Unsurprisingly, "flower gardening tips" returns a slightly different set of relevant links.

Searching for a product's model number doesn't return reviews? Again, if you want a review, maybe you should ask for a review. Sure enough, "apex ad1200" primarily returns places to buy the DVD player, but just adding review to the search term returns useful results. (Yes, Dealtime does jump to the top of the list, but that page does have several reviews on it.)

Oh no, search for "apple" doesn't return any information on artist Fiona Apple for many pages. Maybe you should actually search for "fiona apple"? Don't remember her first name? Try "apple female artist" or apple female musician" which return some good pointers (notably to her first name, which will return even better results.

"apple" doesn't get you information on the fruit? Well, step one is search refinement. Prior to Google people spent lots of time refining searches. Just because Google often does what you want doesn't mean you'll never need to refine your search. So, let's be a bit more specific. Let's try "apple fruit" Viola, hits on the fruit. Want to learn about growing apples? How about "growing apples" Wow, more good hits.

Google doesn't index sites with non-public archives (like the New York Times ? Well, duh. They also don't sneak into your house and index your tax returns. By requiring registration to access their archives, the New York Times has effectively declined to be indexed. Expecting Google to circumvent that decision is stupid.

On the subject of Google not magically indexing everything, we get to the extremely silly complaint that doing research using Google tends to steer people only to online sources, not books. Again, duh. Similarly, if you use your local library's card catalog (or more typically, online catalog), it will only return books and magazines, not web pages. The points to two things. First, if you're doing Real Research, limiting yourself to a single source (be it online or in a library) is just dumb. Second, the internet is rising in importance, and perhaps publishing books online is a good idea.

Google is doing so well that lots of people are interested in taking potshots at it. I'm all in favor of people challenging the status quo, but try to have some real complaints.

... see NYT and c|net

NY Times

heh. No reg required ;)

about Syria and Iranspouted by The Moron-Out-Of-Control

Very truly yours,
W00t

No registration, print friendly.

No registration required

link
or cut and paste if you don't trust links from ACs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/technology/circu its/17shre.html?ex=1059019200&en=e94dac8f9d16f1e5& ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

But to everyone's amazement, the networks' power play was foiled. Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia urged his G.O.P. colleagues to vote their consciences, and an amendment to hold the cap on a huge conglomerate's ownership to 35 percent of the national TV audience was passed by a vote of 40 to 25.

According to this week's Pew Research poll about the F.C.C. plan (to break the ownership barrier and permit media crossover), "By roughly 10 to one (70%-6%), those who have heard a lot about the rules change say its impact will be negative." Nearly half of those polled had heard about this issue, despite conflicted media coverage.

This growing grass-roots grumbling against giantism is getting through to legislators ordinarily cowed by network-owned station managers or wowed by big-media campaign contributions. Unfortunately, the any-merger-goes F.C.C. chairman, Michael Powell, has derided objections to his diktat as "garbage," and the White House strategist Karl Rove dismisses the depth of voter resentment that Democrats will be able to exploit next year.

Eco-cons as well as libertarians may snicker, but Republican Representative Richard Burr of North Carolina observed that 26 independent NBC affiliates had recently exercised their right to refuse to telecast "Maxim's Hot 100." If independents are gobbled up with the F.C.C.'s blessing, more decisions affecting local mores will be made in Rockefeller Center. Is that what George Bush stands for?

...public opinion is on the march. Some in-house pollster should awaken President Bush to a bipartisan sleeper issue that could blindside him next year.

For those who do not want to register: Here

I wonder what Echostar's (owner of Dish Network) take on this is... ...and what will Cablevision do about this?

Bill Gates, the New Ghandi?.....(choke, gasp, cough)

I suggest you read this to see exactly what Bill Gates spends his money on.

Just go to this site http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html save the page to your desktop open up the saved page and click the register and go icon (I remember hereing that NYT.com wised up and blocked traffic from this link) the links is also here

The article from NYTimes requires (free) registration.

Here is the registration free URL

Please use news.google.com for finding article links.

On some file types, such as .txt files, there's no place to insert a "noarchive" and Google goes ahead and caches it anyway.

That's why god created robots exclusion standard (eg. robots.txt).

Specifically, this one.

Here's the current nytimes.com/robots.txt. Notice for instance it allows all robots ("User-agent : *"), but bars them from the "partners" and "archive" sections.

PS
Well, I did have the file pasted here, but Slashdot's fucking lameness filter prevents me from posting it, so use the link above if you're interested.

Shouldn't the NY Times simply tell Google not to cache their site?"

How about if the Times got over their registration fetish?

From the Times Subscriber Agreement:

You may not ... in any way exploit, any of the Content or the Service (including software) in whole or in part.

From the "Forums and Discussions" section:

You shall not upload to, or distribute or otherwise publish on the message boards (the "Forums") any ... abusive ... material.

And how about this>

3.5 You acknowledge that any submissions you make to the Service (e.g. Letter to the Editor, Review or Commentary) may be edited, removed, modified, published, transmitted, and displayed by NYTD and you waive any moral rights you may have in having the material altered or changed in a manner not agreeable to you.

Interpretation: The user/poster is entirely responsible for the content of their post, which the Times may alter in any way. Yikes!!! Granted, this applies only to content submitted to the Times, but the wording seems pretty scary.

Shouldn't the NY Times simply tell Google not to cache their site?

You do realize that this is probably the basis of the "talks" that are going on, right? C|Net (as per usual for them and every news agency) is making a big deal of it to get themselves and their advertisers that tiny wee bit more of attention. Every little bit helps i guess.

Check http://nytimes.com/robots.txt in a week.

No, we do know. The count was done, paid for by the Washington Post, the NYTimes, and the university of miami. You asserted a falsehood, and having been confronted, can't just settle for ignorance. Educate yourself.

Here's the Google link to the article.

Wiley Technology Publishing -- which often works with Microsoft to publish guides for Microsoft products, like the Xbox -- agreed to publish Huang's book then backed out, citing DMCA concerns, but says they would not ask Huang to return the advance they paid him.

Unable to find another publisher, Huang self-published and began selling copies out of his garage. The Electronic Frontier Foundation then stepped in and helped Huang find a new publisher.

There's more in the article, including some discussion about the chilling effect recent legislation has on intellectual freedom.

To recycle an older post, just append &partner=anything_here to your NYTimes URL and it will display the story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/technology/circu its/10xbox.html?pagewanted=all&partner=BIG_GAY _AL

If I'm not greatly mistaken, that's what the (Google) link is for. Try it out, see if it works.

Registration Free Link

Try this link

There was a headlining story on the NYT yesterday:

Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that violence and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that troop levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future," and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month.

My math might be worse than Dubya's, but I figure it at about $130 million A DAY.

While it's great that we're "funding" SETI, perhaps some of the money we're pouring into Iraq would be better spent on science. Mars, anyone? Zubrin's plan calls for $30 billion for a long term program, just over 7 months worth of war. Which would you prefer, nonexistant WMDs or a manned landing on the Red Planet?

>o a Ukranian, a 3 year warrenty means that in 2 years, 11.5 months you bring your product back in for a replacement no matter what.

That is horrible. They don't have to spend 90+ minutes talking to a level one script reader to be escalated to level two support who will curtly cut you off and make you fill out a form demanding everything from the the original reciept (you do keep those in a fire-proof safe right?) to promises of handing over your first born if the product isn't really damaged or the damage was found to be your fault.

Or those retail scams to buy 'Super-warranty service' from the retailer only to find it means they ship your laptop off to the local "service center" where their tech monkeys poke at it with a stick for two weeks before just sending it to the manufacturer.

It gets worse from there.

>for example, the ass-backward EU and their mandated product warrenties

Business 101: the customer ends up paying for everything anyway. This means foreign companies are simply going to up the price for a localized version of that product. Problem solved. It happens all the time.

Put that Ayn Rand book down and you'll find that some of the real issues regarding the financial problems of Eastern Europe is fraud and lack of accountability.

Also, internationalism costs money regardless of what the local law is. Your organization still need to get hire regional experts/lawyers, translation services, beefier insurance, etc. Many Eastern European countries are not only havens for fraud but just poor to begin with; thus its still a niche and its not in the interest of many companies to even bother.