Slashdot Mirror
Restrictive Linking Policies & The Net
Masem writes "News.com reports on a new site set up by Prof. David Sorkin of the John Marshall Law School that points out web sites with restrictive linking policies, entitled Don't Link To Us. Sorkin set up the site as a way to enlighten net users on the impact of such policies in the aftermath of past and pending court cases over deep linking policies. An owner of one site on the list, law.com, was suprised to discover that their site has a restrictive linking policy, and already plans to implement changes to it."
law.com
Fleur de Sel
don't link to this first post!
ahahaha. it's never fp for me. always third.
but, maybe.....
stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter stupid 20 second filter
But they're right. DON'T FUCKING LINK TO SITES THAT DON'T WANT YOU! Stupid Internet libertarian hippies, think the rules don't apply to them.
PS: First Post!
Don't link to the first post.
Know your enemy. Study this list of Jews trying to destroy your freedom:
- Rosen
- Coble
- Berman
- Eisner
- Redstone
The Jews never create anything. They are the parasites who wedge themselves between the producer and the consumer. The Jew takes a slice of every pie that passes by. What the Jew hates is that the Internet is cutting him off from his host. The artists can now distribute directly to their fans. The Internet has made the Jew irrelevant. So the Jew tries to buy the politician to do his bidding. The Jew tries to get bought politicians to pass bogus regulations in order to maintain Jew hegemony over the consumer.Listen and learn about the Jew in this mp3.
Learn the Truth about the Jew
Thats really beautiful: a list of people who don't want to be linked to, and each entry is a working link to them. I wonder how many letters they get saying "Please do not link to us from your Do not link to us page"?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
There is a simple way to keep people from linking to your site, just find your webserver, and unplug the network connection. And next week, we talk about people who hang signs in their window, but don't want people looking at them.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
The website has a number of links to places who prohibit or require permission for linking. Is the irony of this intended?
Law.com was surprised that their website had a policy that they and their lawyers had ccoked up restricting linking? Why were they surprised? Did this policy get published by little policy fairies in the middle of the night without law.com's knowledge or consent.
Puhlease!
Perhaps their appearance in Don't Link to Us! will help encourage some of these sites to move forward into the 20th century.
I wonder if they really meant the 21st century, or are just really insulting those sites.
1. Do not touch or attempt to touch a UFO that has landed. Passing through the Earth's atmosphere the skin of the craft will be hot.
There is also a possibility of radiation. There is also a chance of steam being produced from the heated hull at the landing site.
2. Do not stand under a hovering UFO at low altitude. There is a possibility of radiation danger.
3. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO CONTACT ALIENS if they appear, any movement on your part may constitute an act of aggression. If possible, back away VERY slowly. Make no gestures what so ever.
4. If possible note the time and take a photograph if possible. Note the shape and size of the craft, use nearby objects for a size comparison.
5. Do not touch any artifact from an alien spacecraft, the artifact may be dangerous, leave this to the authorites.
6. Get away from the area QUICKLY. Inform the local authorites or the military.
I honestly hope not, becuse the site seems to be doing some good in hitting people with the clue stick.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
they allso link...
I was just wondering what the legal definition of a "link" is. Is it just a or what if you just published the url without having an actual link to it?
First if you don't want people linking to your site at all, you are just an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to have a website at all.
r y-URL-For.
But secondly, and this is usually mentioned when this comes up, but I'll say it again.
If you don't want people deep linking into your site, put some sort of CGI in place. Either with refer checking, cookies, or a server side stateful mechinism that tracks a visitors progress through the site. The first two can be defeated if someone really wants in, but will stop most linking.
But this is just stupid anyway. If people weren't ment to link between sites it would have been called the World Wide Line, or the World Wide Collection-of-Sites-that-You-Have-to-Remember-Eve
A. Purpose of this guide.
Firstly, this isn't a joke guide. All the methods described here are working, and with not too much difficulties.
Don't expect that you will be able to lay a girl in one week. Not with this guide anyway. If you have the time, patience, and some manners, you will succeed.
I don't pretend to be a big expert in girls; I'm not. But after some experience with them, I can provide you some information that can help you, with the first moves between he's and her's business.
I will happily update this guide and improve it, with your help, of course. Please send me comments and please help to make it better.
B. The first meets
I believe you have a girlfriend you can experiment with. If you don't, find one. For those purposes, every mid looking girl will suit. Every one can owe a girlfriend, and it's not the time and place to explain how to reach one. (maybe in the next "completed guide of...").
If you don't have a girlfriend yet, at least try to achieve a meet with one.
If you want to continue seeing this girl you have to remember the following:
* Don't make a physical connection on the first dates (don't kiss her goodbye and don't hug her )
* Let her talk. If she has a lot to say - just listen. A node with the head and some leading questions will do.
* If she is permanently silent you can always ask her about:
- herself (hobbies ext.)
- school (although it seems to be boring, you can talk hours on this subject)
- her musical prefers (If she mentions an artist that you dislike, don't show it to her. Just hide it.
- tell her about yourself.
- ask her if she knows x & y from her school.
- and the most important: don't answer with yes or no. those above are chat-stoppers. Expand you speech.
- tell her jokes
- remember to have a lot of humour - they like it.
- very important : don't be serious.
- Mind your manners: don't talk rudely nor curse.
- smile : release the tense.
If all the above fail, and you can't find common language with her, you Probably won't keep with her long time.
* Where to go at the first time:
- movie (let her choose, but don't insist on doing so) You can talk about the movie latter. Pay for you both. (as it's obvious). If she's ok, she will insist on paying on herself.
- go for a walk
- meet at one of your homes. (It's better on her home - she'll feel more relaxed and free)
- party : if available
- School - only if you learn in the same school
* If you enjoyed her company, tell her so. Tell her that you enjoyed, and you want to see her again. Before the end of the meet, fix yourselves a new date (fix it on the same evening)exchange telephones, ofcourse.
* Flatter her, but know your limits. Flatter to her nice sides. (Every one has some). Tell her how nice she is. Flatter to her looks (If you at least find her attractive). Don't say to her "You are the most beautiful girl I ever so"- It sounds non-natural.(She's Probably not.)
* If she plays (love-games) a little - please understand. we'll close the bills later...
* Don't bother her with too much telephone calls. Be cool at the first meets, or she'll take advantage over you. Show her you interested, but not desperate.
How will you know if you are friends or not? here are some ways:
- Hear what her girlfriend thinks about your connection.(For instance: If she meets her girlfriend in the street, and the above askes if she is your girlfriend - hear what she says (it's an embarrassing moment - from experience...)
- Enter phrases that assume that she is you girlfriend in your talkes to her. (not infront of her and your friends) See how she react to those statements.
The first physical connection. There are two ways establishing it:
* The spontaneous way: Kiss her goodbye (not in the first date - she'll appreciate it if you'll have patience.) In the following date take you hands together. It's very romantic. Dance with her in one of your homes. Dance is a kind of hug, and it the middle of this slow song - kiss here. (she might be shy in public, so understand her, and do this critical steps in public garden or other quiet place.)
* The non-spontaneous way: Lead her to non-public and quiet place (i.e. garden) look in her eyes and silent for a moment or so. She, understanding the moment, will silent too. Approach her head with yours, and gently kiss her a few times on her mouth. Hug her. (BTW, this the recommended way).
By this time, if she is with you, you'll understand that she likes your company. If she didn't, you won't reach that stage. If she likes you (or love you - in the better case), she would more then hugs and kisses -- but don't hurry. You should have patience. You should reach the bed only by small steps.
C. Phase I - "I like you"
You (both) will start to say compliments to each other. Don't say you love her if you don't feel anything to her. Choose the right moment of doing so.
Imagine the situation: You tell her "I Love you.". She, likes you very much, but the way to love is still long. She will be in shocking situation. If she'll say "I love you too" and she doens't mean it - you will both leave in lie. If she'll be silent, you will Probably have bad feelings -- "She doesn't love me at all.."
You can say to her "I like you/your looks/your style." This isn't strong as "love". Love is very strong word. Don't use it when not needed.
Some guys say to their girls that they love them - They think she will jump to the bed right a way. Although she will try to show you her greetings, don't expect to much. She's just a girl, and if she is between younger then 16. she's Probably virgin.
Bring her flowers & presents some time - it will mean very much to her. If you like to write, write her love letters. Bring her audio cassette with love songs - she'll remember you and connect you to them.
D. Phase II The body language
You are now on the kings way.
You should talk about sex by this time. Ask her what she thinks about it. (Don't involve doing sex with YOU). Ask her about sex generally. Ask her what is the appropriate age for doing it.
Start investigating her body - only in one of your homes. After you kiss her you should get to a situation where you are laying one infront of another (on the bed)
Let your hand travel over her body Don't touch between her legs - do the things in the order below.
Sneak you hand under her skirt and pat her back. If she wears a bra put you hand under the stripe (the one above her back - but don't open it - let your hand travel under the bra surface and forward to her tits. Don't touch hard there - it hurts. If she resists get you hand out of there quickly. We will continue later with this. Give her 10 minutes of rest from the last event. Talk about something else. (Remember - Don't ask her why she resists. Just ignore.)
Another area you should quest is her ass. Pat it gently - Stack you hand gently under her trousers and move your hand more deeply every time. She'll Probably resist or do sounds of disagreement. Remember - Even if she says she's not - She like your touches there. By this time you should be friends for 1-2 months or so - you know each other enough for those games.
After few meets doing the above, you can try removing her bra. The fastest you do it-the better she won't say anything. Don't ask her too remove it by herself - You're on you own now. after you opened it, don't ask her to totally remove it (not at the first time, at least).
Now it's a very important moment. Remember to close the lights, and get blanket from somewhere. Move you hand down to the area of her cunt. (all with clothes, of course). Pat her near it - but don't touch it directly. She'll bag in her mind from you to do it. After a few minutes of doing so, (Don't forget to kiss her all the times...she's not a sex machine)
Move your hand directly to there. You might feel some bones there (and by this time you are wondering where the hall is)
Don't ask her if it's good to her. It is. Your touch there is just like an electrical shock - it's very pleasuring.
If she's OK, she will do the same to you, so you will both feel perfect understand of each other. She might resist to your touch, but -believe me- if you'll stop toucing there for a meet or so, she will curse herself. The next time you'll try - you won't hear a hiss.
Now...open her trousers. If she'll resist ask her what she afraids from. What can possibly happen? Start patting her cunt harder and with circulating movements. (she is still with her underwear -- don't remove it!)Have patience and control yourself. If she'll like what you are doing there, and she's OK, she will do the same to you. Don't hide your erect penis. You can't. But she'll will be amazed from the quick reaction...
Now your hand is there - circulating over her underwear. The best way of directly touching it is to "accidently" insert a finger under her underwear. (Do it from her legs side) She want resist...don't insert a finger in the hole - It can hurt even if she isn't virgin. Remove you fingers from there and insert full hand from her stomach side. Lay your forehand on her hair, and let the fingers play a little down there. Try to locate her clitoris - this is the mega power station of emotions... (Open the little lips of her cunt and travel up until they meet (the lips) there should be there an small organ (About 2-3 cm) - remember:Don't touch there to long - it is the most enjoying organ there, but it's not the only.
Don't forget to kiss her all the times. You can lick her tits nipples (not all the girls will let you doing so in that stage)Kiss her under her neck and lick her hear.
Continue touching her there. The lights are off, but try to look if her eyes are closed. If they are - she's enjoying. If not, continue patting her there - her eyes will be closed immediately.
Try to concentrate on her (girls like attention) but if she wants to pleasure you let her doing so. Remember - don't expect to much from her. You are the leader in the bed.
Try to give her an orgasm. A few minutes of direct squeezes at her clitoris will do. If it doesn't - ask her what will make her good there. Let her instruct you, but don't insist on it. If she has a serial of convulsions - she reached it (with your help of course). After that she will feel free to do it to you...
After the next meet she will take a talk with you. She'll say that she don't like what you've reached ("..I think we are getting to much close to it..."). Ask her "What do you afraid of?? You had fun didn't you? Look. I don't rowing anywhere. I don't know if I want to it yet (I mean full sex)". She'll be convinced. She won't start with it when you are doing so- she have to much pleasure...
You are both naked now, beside of your underwear (I hope). Now - lay on her. Curse the existence of your lower underwear - Loudly. Lay her on her back. Massage her for 10 minutes. Kiss her back. Now - Remove her underwear completely - she'll fill safe because she is on her stomach. (No danger of actual intercourse). Remove your pants. Lay on her (She still upside down -remember?) She will Probably feel great and hot. Rub your penis against her ass chicks. Say to her "would you like me to take some safety percations?". She'll say "What do you mean?" answer her: "I almost finished...". Pull a condom from somewhere (I bet it waited a long time...)and put it. Lay again over her and make some moves. Now - Rotate her so she'll lay on her back again. Lay over her. Fiddle with her cunt a little and try to insert your penis. If she'll say "don't insert" - say "ok", wait and retry.
If it doesn't enter, open her lips with your two hands and try again. If she is virgin, it will Probably hurt her a little so please be patient and if you are powerful, wait for the next meet. (In the next meet throw your parents of your house for the day). If it still hurts her, try to expend her virgin membrane with your fingers. (There IS a hole there - even if she is totally virgin. All you have to do is expend it a little).
What if it doesn't work - There are few possibilities:
- You tried to move too forward with not too much time.
- She's totally cold (Frigid). Find someone else.
- She isn't ready yet. Convince her. "What do you have to loose?" remember that you must make yourself credit from hers side
- She is afraid of pregnancy : Wait, or convince her that you will take a reliable anti-pregnancy device. (Tell her that you'll take condoms; If she's virgin, this is the only possibility).
If she is totally afraid, but want to try sexual intercourse, convince her to take anti-pregnancy pills. It is vey hard for anyone to admit befor a strange person that you're making sexual intercoures; try to understand. BTW, the doctors usually don't "insert hands" today. (They just test blood pressure and heart beat rate)
She will give you examples of girls that she READ about that used anti-pregnancy devices that failed; tell her "Did you hear about all the intercourses which didn't end with pregnancy ?" and "Why are you so negative about it? it's positive thing!"
- If all above fails and she still don't want it, wait. or....merry her...
All the procedure described here (From totally start) Should Take about 3 months. If you're thinking that you are moving to quick, slow the rate.
As a young, modern women of the naughties, you no doubt have many questions concerning romance, love, even s..e..x. In this sensitive and frank "question and answer" format, noted sex therapist Dr Rut explains everythiong you've ever wondered about.
...preferably the kind that smells of stale beer and lots of men crowded around watching a sports event on television. Pick a man that looks interesting - it's bets to stay away from the shallow "pretty boys" in designer clothes with bulging muscles. Instead, I recommend you pick somebody a little older and wiser, possibly reassuring pot belly. Boldly approach him, offer to buy him a few beers, then invite him back to your place. He'll advise you from there.
Q: Where can I find the man of my dreams ?
A: This is a difficult question, since every woman probably has a different ideal of what her own personal Prince Charming should act and look like. However, when it comes to finding Mr Right, I can give you a good suggestion on where to start - and that's in a bar. That's right, go to a bar
Q: How do I know if I found Mr Right ?
A: Unfortunately, there's no sure way to tell. Therefore, I suggest you try out many different kinds of men and many different kinds of bars.
Q: Do men like aggresive women?
A: Definitely. Although they don't admit it, men are often shy - so it's up to you to be bold. In addition to bars, don't be affraid to approach men on streetcorners, in restaurants, even in restrooms. Break the ice with simple "hello", followed by an offer to buy them dinner, drinks - even an expensive gift. Then invite them to back to your place.
Q: What if a man's married ?
A: Go for it. This is a great opportunity to enjoy the valuable experience a married man possesses, without being tied down by any sort of commitment.
Q: But what if I fall in love with a married man ?
A: This is a tough one, especially if you find yourself pregnant. Ask him how he feels about his wife and family. If he says his wife doesn't understand him and he's thinking of leaving her, believe him and continue your relationship, secure in the knowledge that he'll soon make good his promise. Married men rarely lie about such important matters.
Q: How do I know if I'm ready for sex ?
A: ask your boyfriend. He'll know when the time is right. When it comes to love and sex, men are much more responsible, since they're not confused emotionally as women. It's a proven fact.
Q: Should I have sex on the first date ?
A: YES. Before if possible.
Q: What exactly happens during the act of sex ?
A: Again, this is entirely up to the man. The important thing to remember is that you must do whatever he tells you without question. Sometimes, however, he may ask you to do certain things that may at first seem strange to you. Do them anyway.
Q: How long should the sex act last ?
A: This is a natural and normal part of nature, so don't feel ashamed or embarressed. After your man has finished making love, he'll have a natural desire to leave you suddenly, and go out with his friends to play golf. Or perhaps another activity, such as going out with his friends to the bar for the purpose of consuming large amounts of alcohol and sharing a few personal thoughts with his buddies. Don't feel left out - while he's gone you can busy yourself by doing his laundry, cleanig his apartment, or perhaps even going out to buy him an expensive gift. He'll come back when he's ready.
Q: What is "afterplay" ?
A: After a man has finished making love, he needs to replenish his manly energy. "Afterplay" is simply a list of important activities for you to do after the lovemaking. This includes lighting his cigarette, making him a sandwich or pizza, bringing him a few beers, or leaving him alone to sleep while you go out and buy him an expensive gift.
Q: Does the size of the penis matter ?
A: Yes. Although many women believe that quality, not quantity, is important, studies show this is simply not true. The average erect male penis measures about six centimeters. Anything longer than that is extremely rare and, if by some chance your lover's sexual organ is seven centimeters or over, you should go down on yur knees and thank you lucky stars and do everything possible to please him, such as doing his laundry, cleaning his apartment and buying him an expensive gift.
Q: What about the female orgasm ?
A: What about it ? There's no such thing. It's a myth.
Q: Are you sure ?
A: Will you stop asking so many questions ? Do you distrust men or something ? Instead, prove how much you care for your boyfriend by going out and buying him an expensive gift.
And oh yes,
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
is why they're trying legal (as in using the law) approaches to technical problems, something that normally cannot be done. Technical problems need technical solutions.
In this case - checking referrer tags in http requests and blocking them as appropriate instead of litigating the defendant into removing a link.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
This is almost as good as going against someone who buys their ink by the barrel.
Lets see, 1 law professor, 20 students needed project for class. Hmmmm.....
Fight Spammers!
Funny, their actually policy is beautifully ironic:
"Don't Link to Us! links to sites that attempt to impose substantial restrictions on other sites that link to them. The Linking Policy for Don't Link to Us! precludes us from requesting permission to link to a site, and compels us to link directly to the targeted page (i.e., a "deep link") rather than to a site's home page. "
Operator, give me the number for 911!
What i don't understand is how people can get up-in-arms when organizations attempt to prevent people from linking to their site, yet at the same time lament the increase of spam in their inboxes.
It seems to me that three of the linchpins of the arguments for, say, making spam illegal are 1) the email was unsolicited, 2) the spam potentially interferes with "legitimate" emails, and 3) the downloading of spam can force the recipient to incur costs he did not intend to.
These arguments can be made for unsolicited/unapproved deep-or-otherwise- linking. Often links to websites - and the manner in which they are linked - imply a relationship or endorsement of a website that an organization might not accept. Unauthorized links to websites can interfere with normal traffic to that website, at times bringing such services down, - as surely users of Slashdot know. And moreover, unauthorized links - again, as from Slashdot - can force users to incur not-insubstantial bandwidth costs.
So from this analysis, if making spam illegal is a desirable goal - and it seems to be from the cheers here whenever charges are pressed against spammers - then I think it's difficult to simultaneously rationalize and argument against companies' attempts to control linkage to their sites.
I hope all these nancies who publish stuff on the web but don't want it linked to have set-up robots.txt appropriately.
There isn't much difference between a website linking to you, and a result page of a search engine.
For the unitiated, robots.txt is a text file you can place in the root directory of your web site that advises search engines not to index various parts of your site. More info at http://www.robotstxt.org/
Don't Link to Us! links to sites that attempt to impose substantial restrictions on other sites that link to them. The Linking Policy for Don't Link to Us! precludes us from requesting permission to link to a site, and compels us to link directly to the targeted page (i.e., a "deep link") rather than to a site's home page. Descriptions of sites' linking policies generally are accurate (though often not complete) at the time they are posted here but are likely to change over time. On occasion a web site will modify its linking policy in response to public ridicule. Perhaps their appearance in Don't Link to Us! will help encourage some of these sites to move forward into the 20th century.
Rock on, dude.
--Jim
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
Where as the root of your problems has to do with the incredibly miniscule size of your genetalia and brain.
The famous website The Register prohibits linking to its stories... Seems to be only from their own ISP, but I have no time to investigate further.
Link to the Kuro5hin article
This book is largely concerned with Hobbits, and from its pages a reader may discover much of their character and a little of their history. Further information will also be found in the selection from the Red Book of Westmarch that has already been published, under the title of The Hobbit. That story was derived from the earlier chapters of the Red Book, composed by Bilbo himself, the first Hobbit to become famous in the world at large, and called by him There and Back Again, since they told of his journey into the East and his return: an adventure which later involved all the Hobbits in the great events of that Age that are here related.
Many, however, may wish to know more about this remarkable people from the outset, while some may not possess the earlier book. For such readers a few notes on the more important points are here collected from Hobbit-lore, and the first adventure is briefly recalled.
Hobbits are an unobtrusive but very ancient people, more numerous formerly than they are today; for they love peace and quiet and good tilled earth: a well-ordered and well-farmed countryside was their favourite haunt. They do not and did not understand or like machines more complicated than a forge-bellows, a water-mill, or a hand-loom, though they were skilful with tools. Even in ancient days they were, as a rule, shy of 'the Big Folk', as they call us, and now they avoid us with dismay and are becoming hard to find. They are quick of hearing and sharp-eyed, and though they are inclined to be fat and do not hurry unnecessarily, they are nonetheless nimble and deft in their movements. They possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by; and this an they have developed until to Men it may seem magical. But Hobbits have never, in fact, studied magic of any kind, and their elusiveness is due solely to a professional skill that heredity and practice, and a close friendship with the earth, have rendered inimitable by bigger and clumsier races.
For they are a little people, smaller than Dwarves: less tout and stocky, that is, even when they are not actually much shorter. Their height is variable, ranging between two and four feet of our measure. They seldom now reach three feet; but they hive dwindled, they say, and in ancient days they were taller. According to the Red Book, Bandobras Took (Bullroarer), son of Isengrim the Second, was four foot five and able to ride a horse. He was surpassed in all Hobbit records only by two famous characters of old; but that curious matter is dealt with in this book.
As for the Hobbits of the Shire, with whom these tales are concerned, in the days of their peace and prosperity they were a merry folk. They dressed in bright colours, being notably fond of yellow and green; but they seldom wore shoes, since their feet had tough leathery soles and were clad in a thick curling hair, much like the hair of their heads, which was commonly brown. Thus, the only craft little practised among them was shoe-making; but they had long and skilful fingers and could make many other useful and comely things. Their faces were as a rule good-natured rather than beautiful, broad, bright-eyed, red-cheeked, with mouths apt to laughter, and to eating and drinking. And laugh they did, and eat, and drink, often and heartily, being fond of simple jests at all times, and of six meals a day (when they could get them). They were hospitable and delighted in parties, and in presents, which they gave away freely and eagerly accepted.
It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked and disliked much the same things as Men did. But what exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered. The beginning of Hobbits lies far back in the Elder Days that are now lost and forgotten. Only the Elves still preserve any records of that vanished time, and their traditions are concerned almost entirely with their own history, in which Men appear seldom and Hobbits are not mentioned at all. Yet it is clear that Hobbits had, in fact, lived quietly in Middle-earth for many long years before other folk became even aware of them. And the world being after all full of strange creatures beyond count, these little people seemed of very little importance. But in the days of Bilbo, and of Frodo his heir, they suddenly became, by no wish of their own, both important and renowned, and troubled the counsels of the Wise and the Great.
Those days, the Third Age of Middle-earth, are now long past, and the shape of all lands has been changed; but the regions in which Hobbits then lived were doubtless the same as those in which they still linger: the North-West of the Old World, east of the Sea. Of their original home the Hobbits in Bilbo's time preserved no knowledge. A love of learning (other than genealogical lore) was far from general among them, but there remained still a few in the older families who studied their own books, and even gathered reports of old times and distant lands from Elves, Dwarves, and Men. Their own records began only after the settlement of the Shire, and their most ancient legends hardly looked further back than their Wandering Days. It is clear, nonetheless, from these legends, and from the evidence of their peculiar words and customs, that like many other folk Hobbits had in the distant past moved westward. Their earliest tales seem to glimpse a time when they dwelt in the upper vales of Anduin, between the eaves of Greenwood the Great and the Misty Mountains. Why they later undertook the hard and perilous crossing of the mountains into Eriador is no longer certain. Their own accounts speak of the multiplying of Men in the land, and of a shadow that fell on the forest, so that it became darkened and its new name was Mirkwood.
Before the crossing of the mountains the Hobbits had already become divided into three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors, and Fallohides. The Harfoots were browner of skin, smaller, and shorter, and they were beardless and bootless; their hands and feet were neat and nimble; and they preferred highlands and hillsides. The Stoors were broader, heavier in build; their feet and hands were larger, and they preferred flat lands and riversides. The Fallohides were fairer of skin and also of hair, and they were taller and slimmer than the others; they were lovers of trees and of woodlands.
The Harfoots had much to do with Dwarves in ancient times, and long lived in the foothills of the mountains. They moved westward early, and roamed over Eriador as far as Weathertop while the others were still in the Wilderland. They were the most normal and representative variety of Hobbit, and far the most numerous. They were the most inclined to settle in one place, and longest preserved their ancestral habit of living in tunnels and holes.
The Stoors lingered long by the banks of the Great River Anduin, and were less shy of Men. They came west after the Harfoots and followed the course of the Loudwater southwards; and there many of them long dwelt between Tharbad and the borders of Dunland before they moved north again.
The Fallohides, the least numerous, were a northerly branch. They were more friendly with Elves than the other Hobbits were, and had more skill in language and song than in handicrafts; and of old they preferred hunting to tilling. They crossed the mountains north of Rivendell and came down the River Hoarwell. In Eriador they soon mingled with the other kinds that had preceded them, but being somewhat bolder and more adventurous, they were often found as leaders or chieftains among clans of Harfoots or Stoors. Even in Bilbo's time the strong Fallohidish strain could still be noted among the greater families, such as the Tooks and the Masters of Buckland.
In the westlands of Eriador, between the Misty Mountains and the Mountains of Lune, the Hobbits found both Men and Elves. Indeed, a remnant still dwelt there of the Dunedain, the kings of Men that came over the Sea out of Westernesse; but they were dwindling fast and the lands of their North Kingdom were falling far and wide into waste. There was room and to spare for incomers, and ere long the Hobbits began to settle in ordered communities. Most of their earlier settlements had long disappeared and been forgotten in Bilbo's time; but one of the first to become important still endured, though reduced in size; this was at Bree and in the Chetwood that lay round about, some forty miles east of the Shire.
It was in these early days, doubtless, that the Hobbits learned their letters and began to write after the manner of the Dunedain, who had in their turn long before learned the art from the Elves. And in those days also they forgot whatever languages they had used before, and spoke ever after the Common Speech, the Westron as it was named, that was current through all the lands of the kings from Arnor to Gondor, and about all the coasts of the Sea from Belfalas to Lune. Yet they kept a few words of their own, as well as their own names of months and days, and a great store of personal names out of the past.
About this time legend among the Hobbits first becomes history with a reckoning of years. For it was in the one thousand six hundred and first year of the Third Age that the Fallohide brothers, Marcho and Blanco, set out from Bree; and having obtained permission from the high king at Fornost1, they crossed the brown river Baranduin with a great following of Hobbits. They passed over the Bridge of Stonebows, that had been built in the days of the power of the North Kingdom, and they took ail the land beyond to dwell in, between the river and the Far Downs. All that was demanded of them was that they should keep the Great Bridge in repair, and all other bridges and roads, speed the king's messengers, and acknowledge his lordship.
Thus began the Shire-reckoning, for the year of the crossing of the Brandywine (as the Hobbits turned the name) became Year One of the Shire, and all later dates were reckoned from it.2 At once the western Hobbits fell in love with their new land, and they remained there, and soon passed once more out of the history of Men and of Elves. While there was still a king they were in name his subjects, but they were, in fact, ruled by their own chieftains and meddled not at all with events in the world outside. To the last battle at Fornost with the Witch-lord of Angmar they sent some bowmen to the aid of the king, or so they maintained, though no tales of Men record it. But in that war the North Kingdom ended; and then the Hobbits took the land for their own, and they chose from their own chiefs a Thain to hold the authority of the king that was gone. There for a thousand years they were little troubled by wars, and they prospered and multiplied after the Dark Plague (S.R. 37) until the disaster of the Long Winter and the famine that followed it. Many thousands then perished, but the Days of Dearth (1158-60) were at the time of this tale long past and the Hobbits had again become accustomed to plenty. The land was rich and kindly, and though it had long been deserted when they entered it, it had before been well tilled, and there the king had once had many farms, cornlands, vineyards, and woods.
Forty leagues it stretched from the Far Downs to the Brandywine Bridge, and fifty from the northern moors to the marshes in the south. The Hobbits named it the Shire, as the region of the authority of their Thain, and a district of well-ordered business; and there in that pleasant comer of the world they plied their well-ordered business of living, and they heeded less and less the world outside where dark things moved, until they came to think that peace and plenty were the rule in Middle-earth and the right of all sensible folk. They forgot or ignored what little they had ever known of the Guardians, and of the labours of those that made possible the long peace of the Shire. They were, in fact, sheltered, but they had ceased to remember it.
At no time had Hobbits of any kind been warlike, and they had never fought among themselves. In olden days they had, of course, been often obliged to fight to maintain themselves in a hard world; but in Bilbo's time that was very ancient history. The last battle, before this story opens, and indeed the only one that had ever been fought within the borders of the Shire, was beyond living memory: the Battle of Greenfields, S.R. 1147, in which Bandobras Took routed an invasion of Orcs. Even the weathers had grown milder, and the wolves that had once come ravening out of the North in bitter white winters were now only a grandfather's tale. So, though there was still some store of weapons in the Shire, these were used mostly as trophies, hanging above hearths or on walls, or gathered into the museum at Michel Delving. The Mathom-house it was called; for anything that Hobbits had no immediate use for, but were unwilling to throw away, they called a mathom. Their dwellings were apt to become rather crowded with mathoms, and many of the presents that passed from hand to hand were of that sort.
Nonetheless, ease and peace had left this people still curiously tough. They were, if it came to it, difficult to daunt or to kill; and they were, perhaps, so unwearyingly fond of good things not least because they could, when put to it, do without them, and could survive rough handling by grief, foe, or weather in a way that astonished those who did not know them well and looked no further than their bellies and their well-fed faces. Though slow to quarrel, and for sport killing nothing that lived, they were doughty at bay, and at need could still handle arms. They shot well with the bow, for they were keen-eyed and sure at the mark. Not only with bows and arrows. If any Hobbit stooped for a stone, it was well to get quickly under cover, as all trespassing beasts knew very well.
All Hobbits had originally lived in holes in the ground, or so they believed, and in such dwellings they still felt most at home; but in the course of time they had been obliged to adopt other forms of abode. Actually in the Shire in Bilbo's days it was, as a rule, only the richest and the poorest Hobbits that maintained the old custom. The poorest went on living in burrows of the most primitive kind, mere holes indeed, with only one window or none; while the well-to-do still constructed more luxurious versions of the simple diggings of old. But suitable sites for these large and ramifying tunnels (or smials as they called them) were not everywhere to be found; and in the flats and the low-lying districts the Hobbits, as they multiplied, began to build above ground. Indeed, even in the hilly regions and the older villages, such as Hobbiton or Tuckborough, or in the chief township of the Shire, Michel Delving on the White Downs, there were now many houses of wood, brick, or stone. These were specially favoured by millers, smiths, ropers, and cartwrights, and others of that sort; for even when they had holes to live in. Hobbits had long been accustomed to build sheds and workshops.
The habit of building farmhouses and barns was said to have begun among the inhabitants of the Marish down by the Brandywine. The Hobbits of that quarter, the Eastfarthing, were rather large and heavy-legged, and they wore dwarf-boots in muddy weather. But they were well known to be Stoors in a large part of their blood, as indeed was shown by the down that many grew on their chins. No Harfoot or Fallohide had any trace of a beard. Indeed, the folk of the Marish, and of Buckland, east of the River, which they afterwards occupied, came for the most part later into the Shire up from south-away; and they still had many peculiar names and strange words not found elsewhere in the Shire.
It is probable that the craft of building, as many other crafts beside, was derived from the Dunedain. But the Hobbits may have learned it direct from the Elves, the teachers of Men in their youth. For the Elves of the High Kindred had not yet forsaken Middle-earth, and they dwelt still at that time at the Grey Havens away to the west, and in other places within reach of the Shire. Three Elf-towers of immemorial age were still to be seen on the Tower Hills beyond the western marches. They shone far off in the moonlight. The tallest was furthest away, standing alone upon a green mound. The Hobbits of the Westfarthing said that one could see the Sea from the lop of that tower; but no Hobbit had ever been known to climb it. Indeed, few Hobbits had ever seen or sailed upon the Sea, and fewer still had ever returned to report it. Most Hobbits regarded even rivers and small boats with deep misgivings, and not many of them could swim. And as the days of the Shire lengthened they spoke less and less with the Elves, and grew afraid of them, and distrustful of those that had dealings with them; and the Sea became a word of fear among them, and a token of death, and they turned their faces away from the hills in the west.
The craft of building may have come from Elves or Men, but the Hobbits used it in their own fashion. They did not go in for towers. Their houses were usually long, low, and comfortable. The oldest kind were, indeed, no more than built imitations of smials, thatched with dry grass or straw, or roofed with turves, and having walls somewhat bulged. That stage, however, belonged to the early days of the Shire, and hobbit-building had long since been altered, improved by devices, learned from Dwarves, or discovered by themselves. A preference for round windows, and even round doors, was the chief remaining peculiarity of hobbit-architecture.
The houses and the holes of Shire-hobbits were often large, and inhabited by large families. (Bilbo and Frodo Baggins were as bachelors very exceptional, as they were also in many other ways, such as their friendship with the Elves.) Sometimes, as in the case of the Tooks of Great Smials, or the Brandybucks of Brandy Hall, many generations of relatives lived in (comparative) peace together in one ancestral and many-tunnelled mansion. All Hobbits were, in any case, clannish and reckoned up their relationships with great care. They drew long and elaborate family-trees with innumerable branches. In dealing with Hobbits it is important to remember who is related to whom, and in what degree. It would be impossible in this book to set out a family-tree that included even the more important members of the more important families at the time which these tales tell of. The genealogical trees at the end of the Red Book of Westmarch are a small book in themselves, and all but Hobbits would find them exceedingly dull. Hobbits delighted in such things, if they were accurate: they liked to have books filled with things that they already knew, set out fair and square with no contradictions.
2. Concerning Pipe-weed
There is another astonishing thing about Hobbits of old that must be mentioned, an astonishing habit: they imbibed or inhaled, through pipes of clay or wood, the smoke of the burning leaves of a herb, which they called pipe-weed or leaf, a variety probably of Nicotiana. A great deal of mystery surrounds the origin of this peculiar custom, or 'art' as the Hobbits preferred to call it. All that could be discovered about it in antiquity was put together by Meriadoc Brandybuck (later Master of Buckland), and since he and the tobacco of the Southfarthing play a part in the history that follows, his remarks in the introduction to his Herblore of the Shire may be quoted.
'This,' he says, 'is the one art that we can certainly claim to be our own invention. When Hobbits first began to smoke is not known, all the legends and family histories take it for granted; for ages folk in the Shire smoked various herbs, some fouler, some sweeter. But all accounts agree that Tobold Hornblower of Longbottom in the Southfarthing first grew the true pipe-weed in his gardens in the days of Isengrim the Second, about the year 1070 of Shire-reckoning. The best home-grown still comes from that district, especially the varieties now known as Longbottom Leaf, Old Toby, and Southern Star.
'How Old Toby came by the plant is not recorded, for to his dying day he would not tell. He knew much about herbs, but he was no traveller. It is said that in his youth he went often to Bree, though he certainly never went further from the Shire than that. It is thus quite possible that he learned of this plant in Bree, where now, at any rate, it grows well on the south slopes of the hill. The Bree-hobbits claim to have been the first actual smokers of the pipe-weed. They claim, of course, to have done everything before the people of the Shire, whom they refer to as "colonists"; but in this case their claim is, I think, likely to be true. And certainly it was from Bree that the art of smoking the genuine weed spread in the recent centuries among Dwarves and such other folk, Rangers, Wizards, or wanderers, as still passed to and fro through that ancient road-meeting. The home and centre of the an is thus to be found in the old inn of Bree, The Prancing Pony, that has been kept by the family of Butterbur from time beyond record.
'All the same, observations that I have made on my own many journeys south have convinced me that the weed itself is not native to our parts of the world, but came northward from the lower Anduin, whither it was, I suspect, originally brought over Sea by the Men of Westernesse. It grows abundantly in Gondor, and there is richer and larger than in the North, where it is never found wild, and flourishes only in warm sheltered places like Longbottom. The Men of Gondor call it sweet galenas, and esteem it only for the fragrance of its flowers. From that land it must have been carried up the Greenway during the long centuries between the coming of Elendil and our own day. But even the Dunedain of Gondor allow us this credit: Hobbits first put it into pipes. Not even the Wizards first thought of that before we did. Though one Wizard that I knew took up the art long ago, and became as skilful in it as in all other things that he put his mind to.'
3. Of the Ordering of the Shire
The Shire was divided into four quarters, the Farthings already referred to. North, South, East, and West; and these again each into a number of folklands, which still bore the names of some of the old leading families, although by the time of this history these names were no longer found only in their proper folklands. Nearly all Tooks still lived in the Tookland, but that was not true of many other families, such as the Bagginses or the Boffins. Outside the Farthings were the East and West Marches: the Buckland (see beginning of Chapter V, Book I); and the Westmarch added to the Shire in S.R. 1462.
The Shire at this time had hardly any 'government'. Families for the most part managed their own affairs. Growing food and eating it occupied most of their time. In other matters they were, as a rule, generous and not greedy, but contented and moderate, so that estates, farms, workshops, and small trades tended to remain unchanged for generations.
There remained, of course, the ancient tradition concerning the high king at Fornost, or Norbury as they called it, away north of the Shire. But there had been no king for nearly a thousand years, and even the ruins of Kings' Norbury were covered with grass. Yet the Hobbits still said of wild folk and wicked things (such as trolls) that they had not heard of the king. For they attributed to the king of old all their essential laws; and usually they kept the laws of free will, because they were The Rules (as they said), both ancient and just.
It is true that the Took family had long been pre-eminent; for the office of Thain had passed to them (from the Oldbucks) some centuries before, and the chief Took had borne that title ever since. The Thain was the master of the Shire-moot, and captain of the Shire-muster and the Hobbitry-in-arms, but as muster and moot were only held in times of emergency, which no longer occurred, the Thainship had ceased to be more than a nominal dignity. The Took family was still, indeed, accorded a special respect, for it remained both numerous and exceedingly wealthy, and was liable to produce in every generation strong characters of peculiar habits and even adventurous temperament. The latter qualities, however, were now rather tolerated (in the rich) than generally approved. The custom endured, nonetheless, of referring to the head of the family as The Took, and of adding to his name, if required, a number: such as Isengrim the Second, for instance.
The only real official in the Shire at this date was the Mayor of Michel Delving (or of the Shire), who was elected every seven years at the Free Fair on the White Downs at the Lithe, that is at Midsummer. As mayor almost his only duty was to preside at banquets, given on the Shire-holidays, which occurred at frequent intervals. But the offices of Postmaster and First Shirriff were attached to the mayoralty, so that he managed both the Messenger Service and the Watch. These were the only Shire-services, and the Messengers were the most numerous, and much the busier of the two. By no means all Hobbits were lettered, but those who were wrote constantly to all their friends (and a selection of their relations) who lived further off than an afternoon's walk.
The Shirriffs was the name that the Hobbits gave to their police, or the nearest equivalent that they possessed. They had, of course, no uniforms (such things being quite unknown), only a feather in their caps; and they were in practice rather haywards than policemen, more concerned with the strayings of beasts than of people. There were in all the Shire only twelve of them, three in each Farthing, for Inside Work. A rather larger body, varying at need, was employed to 'beat the bounds', and to see that Outsiders of any kind, great or small, did not make themselves a nuisance.
At the time when this story begins the Bounders, as they were called, had been greatly increased. There were many reports and complaints of strange persons and creatures prowling about the borders, or over them: the first sign that all was not quite as it should be, and always had been except in tales and legends of long ago. Few heeded the sign, and not even Bilbo yet had any notion of what it portended. Sixty years had passed since he set out on his memorable journey, and he was old even for Hobbits, who reached a hundred as often as not; but much evidently still remained of the considerable wealth that he had brought back. How much or how little he revealed to no one, not even to Frodo his favourite 'nephew'. And he still kept secret the ring that he bad found.
4. Of the Finding of the Ring
As is told in The Hobbit, there came one day to Bilbo's door the great Wizard, Gandalf the Grey, and thirteen dwarves with him: none other, indeed, than Thorin Oakenshield, descendant of kings, and his twelve companions in exile. With them he set out, to his own lasting astonishment, on a morning of April, it being then the year 1341 Shire-reckoning, on a quest of great treasure, the dwarf-hoards of the Kings under the Mountain, beneath Erebor in Dale, far off in the East. The quest was successful, and the Dragon that guarded the hoard was destroyed. Yet, though before all was won the Battle of Five Armies was fought, and Thorin was slain, and many deeds of renown were done, the matter would scarcely have concerned later history, or earned more than a note in the long annals of the Third Age, but for an 'accident' by the way. The party was assailed by Orcs in a high pass of the Misty Mountains as they went towards Wilderland; and so it happened that Bilbo was lost for a while in the black orc-mines deep under the mountains, and there, as he groped in vain in the dark, he put his hand on a ring, lying on the floor of a tunnel. He put it in his pocket. It seemed then like mere luck.
Trying to find his way out. Bilbo went on down to the roots of the mountains, until he could go no further. At the bottom of the tunnel lay a cold lake far from the light, and on an island of rock in the water lived Gollum. He was a loathsome little creature: he paddled a small boat with his large flat feet, peering with pale luminous eyes and catching blind fish with his long fingers, and eating them raw. He ate any living thing, even orc, if he could catch it and strangle it without a struggle. He possessed a secret treasure that had come to him long ages ago, when he still lived in the light: a ring of gold that made its wearer invisible. It was the one thing he loved, his 'precious', and he talked to it, even when it was not with him. For he kept it hidden safe in a hole on his island, except when he was hunting or spying on the ores of the mines.
Maybe he would have attacked Bilbo at once, if the ring had been on him when they met; but it was not, and the hobbit held in his hand an Elvish knife, which served him as a sword. So to gain time Gollum challenged Bilbo to the Riddle-game, saying that if he asked a riddle which Bilbo could not guess, then he would kill him and eat him; but if Bilbo defeated him, then he would do as Bilbo wished: he would lead him to a way out of the tunnels.
Since he was lost in the dark without hope, and could neither go on nor back. Bilbo accepted the challenge; and they asked one another many riddles. In the end Bilbo won the game, more by luck (as it seemed) than by wits; for he was stumped at last for a riddle to ask, and cried out, as his hand came upon the ring he lad picked up and forgotten: What haw I got in my pocket? This Gollum failed to answer, though he demanded three guesses.
The Authorities, it is true, differ whether this last question was a mere 'question' and not a 'riddle' according to the strict rules of the Game; but all agree that, after accepting it and trying to guess the answer, Gollum was bound by his promise. And Bilbo pressed him to keep his word; for the thought came to him that this slimy creature might prove false, even though such promises were held sacred, and of old all but the wickedest things feared to break them. But after ages alone in the dark Gollum's heart was black, and treachery was in it. He slipped away, and returned to the island, of which Bilbo knew nothing, not far off in the dark water. There, he thought, lay his ring. He was hungry now, and angry, and once his 'precious' was with him he would not fear any weapon at all.
But the ring was not on the island; he had lost it, it was gone. His screech sent a shiver down Bilbo's back, though he did not yet understand what had happened. But Gollum had at last leaped to a guess, too late. What has it got in its pocketses? he cried. The light in his eyes was like a green flame as he sped back to murder the hobbit and recover his 'precious'. Just in time Bilbo saw his peril, and he fled blindly up the passage away from the water; and once more he was saved by his luck. For just as he ran he put his hand in his pocket, and the ring slipped quietly on to his finger. So it was that Gollum passed him without seeing him, and went to guard the way out, lest the 'thief' should escape. Warily Bilbo followed him, as he went along, cursing, and talking to himself about his 'precious'; from which talk at last even Bilbo guessed the truth, and hope came to him in the darkness: he himself had found the marvellous ring and a chance of escape from the orcs and from Gollum.
At length they came to a halt before an unseen opening that led to the lower gates of the mines, on the eastward side of the mountains. There Gollum crouched at bay, smelling and listening; and Bilbo was tempted to slay him with his sword. But pity stayed him, and though he kept the ring, in which his only hope lay, he would not use it to help him kill the wretched creature at a disadvantage. In the end, gathering his courage, he leaped over Gollum in the dark, and fled away down the passage, pursued by his enemy's cries of hate and despair: Thief, thief! Baggins! We hates it for ever!
Now it is a curious fact that this is not the story as Bilbo first told it to his companions. To them his account was that Gollum had promised to give him a present, if he won the game; but when Gollum went to fetch it from his island he found the treasure was gone: a magic ring, which had been given to him long ago on his birthday. Bilbo guessed that this was the very ring that he had found, and as he had won the game, it was already his by right. But being in a tight place, he said nothing about it, and made Gollum show him the way out, as a reward instead of a present. This account Bilbo set down in his memoirs, and he seems never to have altered it himself, not even after the Council of Elrond. Evidently it still appeared in the original Red Book, as it did in several of the copies and abstracts. But many copies contain the true account (as an alternative), derived no doubt from notes by Frodo or Samwise, both of whom learned the truth, though they seem to have been unwilling to delete anything actually written by the old hobbit himself.
Gandalf, however, disbelieved Bilbo's first story, as soon as he heard it, and he continued to be very curious about the ring. Eventually he got the true tale out of Bilbo after much questioning, which for a while strained their friendship; but the wizard seemed to think the truth important. Though he did not say so to Bilbo, he also thought it important, and disturbing, to find that the good hobbit had not told the truth from the first: quite contrary to his habit. The idea of a 'present' was not mere hobbitlike invention, all the same. It was suggested to Bilbo, as he confessed, by Gollum's talk that he overheard; for Gollum did, in fact, call the ring his 'birthday present', many times. That also Gandalf thought strange and suspicious; but he did not discover the truth in this point for many more years, as will be seen in this book.
Of Bilbo's later adventures little more need be said here. With the help of the ring he escaped from the orc-guards at the gate and rejoined his companions. He used the ring many times on his quest, chiefly for the help of his friends; but he kept it secret from them as long as he could. After his return to his home he never spoke of it again to anyone, save Gandalf and Frodo; and no one else in the Shire knew of its existence, or so he believed. Only to Frodo did he show the account of his Journey that he was writing.
His sword, Sting, Bilbo hung over his fireplace, and his coat of marvellous mail, the gift of the Dwarves from the Dragon-hoard, he lent to a museum, to the Michel Delving Mathom-house in fact. But he kept in a drawer at Bag End the old cloak and hood that he had worn on his travels; and the ring, secured by a fine chain, remained in his pocket.
He returned to his home at Bag End on June the 22nd in his fifty-second year (S.R. 1342), and nothing very notable occurred in the Shire until Mr. Baggins began the preparations for the celebration of his hundred-and-eleventh birthday (S.R. 1401). At this point this History begins.
NOTE ON THE SHIRE RECORDS
At the end of the Third Age the part played by the Hobbits in the great events that led to the inclusion of the Shire in the Reunited Kingdom awakened among them a more widespread interest in their own history; and many of their traditions, up to that time still mainly oral, were collected and Written down. The greater families were also concerned with events in the Kingdom at large, and many of their members studied its ancient histories and legends. By the end of the first century of the Fourth Age there were already to be found in the Shire several libraries that contained many historical books and records.
The largest of these collections were probably at Undertowers, at Great Smials, and at Brandy Hall. This account of the end of the Third Age is drawn mainly from the Red Book of Westmarch. That most important source for the history of the War of the Ring was so called because it was long preserved at Undertowers, the home of the Fairbairns, Wardens of the Westmarch.3 It was in origin Bilbo's private diary, which he took with him to Rivendell. Frodo brought it back to the Shire, together with many loose leaves of notes, and during S.R. 1420-1 he nearly filled its pages with his account of the War. But annexed to it and preserved with it, probably m a single red case, were the three large volumes, bound in red leather, that Bilbo gave to him as a parting gift. To these four volumes there was added in Westmarch a fifth containing commentaries, genealogies, and various other matter concerning the hobbit members of the Fellowship.
The original Red Book has not been preserved, but many copies were made, especially of the first volume, for the use of the descendants of the children of Master Samwise. The most important copy, however, has a different history. It was kept at Great Smials, but it was written in Condor, probably at the request of the great-grandson of Peregrin, and completed in S.R. 1592 (F.A. 172). Its southern scribe appended this note: Findegil, King's Writer, finished this work in IV 172. It is an exact copy in all details of the Thain's Book m Minas Tirith. That book was a copy, made at the request of King Elessar, of the Red Book of the Periannath, and was brought to him by the Thain Peregrin when he retired to Gondor in IV 64.
The Thain's Book was thus the first copy made of the Red Book and contained much that was later omitted or lost. In Minas Tirith it received much annotation, and many corrections, especially of names, words, and quotations in the Elvish languages; and there was added to it an abbreviated version of those parts of The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen which lie outside the account of the War. The full tale is stated to have been written by Barahir, grandson of the Steward Faramir, some time after the passing of the King. But the chief importance of Findegil's copy is that it alone contains the whole of Bilbo's 'Translations from the Elvish'. These three volumes were found to be a work of great skill and learning in which, between 1403 and 1418, he had used all the sources available to him in Rivendell, both living and written. But since they were little used by Frodo, being almost entirely concerned with the Elder Days, no more is said of them here.
Since Meriadoc and Peregrin became the heads of their great families, and at the same time kept up their connexions with Rohan and Gondor, the libraries at Bucklebury and Tuckborough contained much that did not appear in the Red Book. In Brandy Hall there were many works dealing with Eriador and the history of Rohan. Some of these were composed or begun by Meriadoc himself, though in the Shire he was chiefly remembered for his Herblore of the Shire, and for his Reckoning of Years m which he discussed the relation of the calendars of the Shire and Bree to those of Rivendell, Gondor, and Rohan. He also wrote a short treatise on Old Words and Names in the Shire, having special interest in discovering the kinship with the language of the Rohirrim of such 'shire-words' as mathom and old elements in place names.
At Great Smials the books were of less interest to Shire-folk, though more important for larger history. None of them was written by Peregrin, but he and his successors collected many manuscripts written by scribes of Gondor: mainly copies or summaries of histories or legends relating to Elendil and his heirs. Only here in the Shire were to be found extensive materials for the history of Numenor and the arising of Sauron. It was probably at Great Smials that The Tale of Years4 was put together, with the assistance of material collected by Meriadoc. Though the dates given are often conjectural, especially for the Second Age, they deserve attention. It is probable that Meriadoc obtained assistance and information from Rivendell, which he visited more than once. There, though Elrond had departed, his sons long remained, together with some of the High-elven folk. It is said that Celeborn went to dwell there after the departure of Galadriel; but there is no record of the day when at last he sought the Grey Havens, and with him went the last living memory of the Elder Days in Middle-earth.
Deep linking is one of those "it doesn't matter" issues. Is it legal to stop people from posting deep links? Can it be legally enforced? Who cares? 30 seconds with the web server configuration and the entire problem is solved forever. It would be like suing google for posting links to the site, without even going to the effort of adding a robots.txt file.
I get the feeling that its not the IT departments of these companies that are making these demands. I can't imagine that they would be so hopelessly inept as to propose such solutions to problems that can be easily solved without ever talking to a lawyer.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
ASCAP! The mafia that controls music. There's a great story at wired about travelfinder.com's links to radio stations.
ASCAP wanted them to fork over royalty fees even though the music wasn't archived on their site! The links were clearly denoted as external.
Then again this isn't suprising behavior considering that ASCAP tried to strongarm the girl scouts into paying royalties for songs sung around the campfire.
The way I see it, this is big companies making their sites more user unfriendly - if I was Law.com or whatever, I'd be pleased that people were referencing material on my site directly, it brings focus to the material by allowing easier access for those people that are actually interested in it, rather than have them wander around like an idiot on a badly designed corporate site... like Law.com...
another site besides Slashdot? I would encourage all to post links to everything you find that you cannot link to in this thread.
FYI: These guys have a lot of trademarks: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z. And if you use one of them you'll get sued. Later,
Requiring people to get permission before citing sources in bibliographies?
They're ignoring the fact that links to the site have a great impact on the stature of a site relative to search engines.
Links HELP get the site noticed.
The opposite of progress is congress
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
I'm not surprised that law.com would have such a policy, then claim they knew nothing about it. There's a lot of incompetency going on over there. Even their web page itself sucks with crappy HTML. They probably have a couple of high schools kids who want to show off their Javascript leetness doing the site.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
<clip from the site>
Wednesday, August 14, 2002
Note: This site exceeded its bandwidth allocation, and so I'm in the process of moving it to a new hosting service. Hopefully it will be back online at www.dontlink.com by tomorrow. (I don't recommend linking to the temporary version at www.but4.com/linking, since it will disappear once the site is back up at dontlink.com.)
Update (Aug. 15): I think dontlink.com is now back online. Thanks for your patience! DES permalink
</clip from the site>
what are the odds there will be another one of these for today?
This article completely ignores the reasons that some sites - such as the American Cancer Society - have restrictive linking policies:
How easy is it to imagine setting up a site that displays "official" information from the American Cancer Society - with a "Donate Now!" button linking to my bank in Bermuda.
No, this will not stop a scammer from trying, but it gives the real site owner slightly more legal leverage to do something about it.
Am I thick? Or is this tragically stupid?
... wha!?
Other sites, such as the American Cancer Society, say restrictions on deep linking are in the best interests of people seeking information.
"Our policy is nothing out of the ordinary," American Cancer Society spokesman David Sampson said. "We like people to go through the main page so they find out about the right cancer, and they see the broad range of information we have here. Our aim is to support people as advocates, lead them to support groups, which if people go to a page on a new medicine, they don't see."
Uh.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
don't use e-mail.
Best Slashdot Co
Yet they don't have a robots.txt, and here's the google cache. So when do they sue google?
The point isn't to send the people away who, through no fault of their own, don't arrive by the front door. The point is to convert them to your own customers.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Why would anyone not want someone to deep link to their website? If their info is that precious, then why put it it there in the first place?
/.
Any kind of linking we can get is good, except
Turns out that Slashdot already did a story about this. Sorry for not including the link.
I checked through some of the links to try to find out why some of these sites don't want to be linked to. On thing that came out is that there is a mass of confused thinking and motivation out there. So don't expect a clean solution to this problem. A solution which will satisfy one set of paranoid suits will not satisfy the others.
One of the reasons is that they fear that the appearans of a link from you to them implies some sort of reciprocal approval i.e. that they know of and might be assumed to approve of you. Now, to anyone here, this is absolutely dumb, but corporate zecks and AOLers might not know better.
So here is an idea of how to deal with them. When they post court papers (which are surely public documents), post a reciprocal set of papers requiring them to remove your name, addresss, URL etc. from their papers because they imply they you endorse them etc. Use wording as close as possible to theirs and petition that your case be heard first.
One of two things happen: either the court is sensible and throws out your petition as riduculous, in which case you return with that rejection as a precedent, set in the same court, to justify your linking. Or the court grants your loony case, in which case (by the court's own loguic) they have to withdraw their case against you.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
I saw aliens, just last night. They came down in their silver spaceship and landing five feet in front of me. I fucking swear!
Sadly, I could not remember your useful guide. I now have third degree burns on my hands, possible radiation poisoning, and I'm pretty sure my attempt to hug one of them was the trigger for the anal probing they gave me...
Is there any chance you will be publishing your useful guide in a handy pocket reference format, should such an alien encounter happen to occur in the future?
Are they some scheme for relative immortality of Mr. King? Spread word of his demise to the point that when it finally happens nobody will believe it?
Oh, wait.. if Mr. King really did pass on then there would be actual stories in actual news media (rather than silly anonymous postings like this one. Yes, I know..) outlets.
If somebody links to you in a derogatory -- but not libelous -- way, that's a bummer, but it's legal. Hey, you can always do the same back to them. :-)
What about this...
The policy if this site is that any site linked to by this site must not under any circumstances capture referring URL information. Any capture and/or use of this information is a violation of our policy and will be prosecuted using the strongest methods available.
even better: they could deep-link.
dontlink already links directly to sites' linking policies.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Web pages let you link to other web pages. That's basically how the Internet works. If you don't like it, use some other medium. Build your own Internet that doesn't let you link to other web pages.
If you want to prevent deep links, here's two suggestions:
1. Don't use HTML. Maybe the American Cancer Society can build an elaborate Shockwave web presence.
2. Don't have links. Maybe law.com can just put all of their content on one huge webpage.
each one of these sites an email telling them I have linked to their sites and I don't care if they don't like it, and I have created links on my webpage to all of their sites. I would give you guys a link to my website, but I don't allow other people to link to it.
A list of mirrors of dontlink.com appears here.
/. account)
- David Sorkin
(please forgive the "anonymous" posting; I haven't set up a
If you don't want to be linked to, don't put your stuff on the web.
And use open standards, too, dammit!
The web was built for the free sharing of information for the good of all. If you're to damn greedy to share, get the fuck out.
Stupid motherfuckers don't understand that's what the web's all about.
This past week on Vegan.com, we've run a "Don't Link to Huntington" article. Huntington prohibits linking to their site, which is reason enough in my eyes to link to them. They are one of the biggest vivisectors in the United States, and they want it both ways. They want to use a website to peddle their animal testing services to companies, while preventing animal rights groups from pointing to Huntingon.com in order to show the public what is done to animals for the sake of making a buck.
But here's where the story takes an interesting turn. As I said, we posted our link on Vegan.com a few days ago. I was expecting I might receive a nasty letter from their lawyers telling me to desist. Sheesh, in fact you could say I was hoping to get a notice from their lawyers, so I could tell them to go cram it. But nothing.
Instead, here's what they have apparently done. I just went to Vegan.com, and the links to Huntington's page now come up as refused if you click on them. Meanwhile, you can still manually type Huntington.com into your browser, and the site will come up. So I suspect they have put a block in place, refusing all links from Vegan.com. Try it and see for yourself
But of course, refusing links is not the worst thing these scumbags do, given the horrifying acts they perform every day on animals. But there's no point in starting a rant about that.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
You aren't David Sorkin, you troll! Moderators! Do your job and mod this obvious troll down! Anonymous posting simply WILL NOT DO!
I agree that the polices mentioned seem daft and unenforcable. However it seems to me that if companies wish to implement restrictive linking policies, then they shuld be able to do this in a more automated way. One approach could be an Apache module which implemented policies on linking, based on the referrer field. I guess many people would probably want this type of facility to stop people linking directly to images on your Web site (e.g. stealing your identity by taking your logo). We're likely to see more need as technologies such as XLink and XPpointer take off - I want to link to your page, but I don't want the logo or the copyright statement at the bottom of the page!. Brian Kelly
If people don't want other sites linking to their sites, make THEM take care of this matter! In their web server config, check to see if the HTTP_REFERER variable is either their domain, a site that they have granted permission to link to their site, or empty. If it is, let people into the site ... otherwise give them an error page (404 - You ae not allowed to link to my site because we are mean that way)
How rediculous! I can understand people wanting others to be curtius and not deep link ... but not being allowed to link to ANY of their pages ... gimme a break. People like that shouldn't be allowed to register a domian name. And besides, they CAN stop deep linking .... they're just too lazy! If it bugs you, DO SOMETHING!!!!
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
There is also a possibility of radiation. There is also a chance of steam being produced from the heated hull at the landing site.
I work at one of the companies mentioned in the "Don't link to Us!" web site and I wasn't aware of the policy. Methinks I may have to post a message on one of the group message boards asking about this policy :) I don't have any job security anyway (I'm a contractor) so who cares?
I browse at -1 because I find useful tips there for dealing with everyday life.
I would like one single document that provides common sense warnings for laying a girl that lives in a UFO, and answers questions I have about love and sex with her.
I ADD THE FOLLOWING TO TAUNT THE LAMENESS FILTER. FUCK YOU, LAMENESS FILTER.
That is all. I am Jon Katz. Please fellate me.
No off course not. Your analogy is flawed.
You meant: "Requiring people to get permission before citing the relevant pagenumbers in sources in bibliographies."
aw, fukkit!
I would think that was a bad Idea right becuase of a search engine like Google the site would no longer have links to it so it would be less important according to google. Am I right about that?
<a src="http://www.geocities.com/bruthasj">bruthasj</ a> doesn't not have a copy of your webpage. It give instructions on how to see the information from your web page, just like a bibliography points to source data for an article.
A robotic text reading robot librarian could be like a browser. It could recognize bibliographical entries and fetch the book for you. This isn't a source issue, it is a browser issue. Law.com should sue MS for writing IE because it automatically gets data from law.com.
Joe Batt Solid Design
Well, there is a simple solution... if you run a web site and don't want links to yours, use Apache and install mod_rewrite. Then it's a simple matter of defining rewrite rules in your base .htaccess file that check the HTTP_REFERER value - if your own domain (or any authorized domain you wish to define) is not in your list, the user can either be redirected to your home page (stop deep linking only) or to a "don't link to us" page, or direct to a 403:
/image_directory.* [NC] .*\.jpg /graphics/linked.gif
Hree's my favorite - created for a friend who didn't want folks including her images in their siges by link:
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://foo\.com/.*$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI}
RewriteRule
This one should just give the bugger a 403 if they link directly to anything on your site - might have to add exclusionary logic for the home page to avoid locking everyone out.
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://foo\.com/.*$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ - [F]
The Digital Sorceress
(now Senator) Maria Cantwell's campaign against (then Senator) Slade Gorton.
Her campaign found this absolutely goofy ass picture on Slade's website. So they deep linked to the picture on the front page as part of some bit about Slade's environmental record.
When Slade's campaign first noticed it, his campaign manager first claimed copyright violation and then claimed Maria's people had hacked Slade's website.
Eventually, the technical people at Slade's campaign caught on and replaced the goofy image with an "Elect Slade Gorton" type graphic that invited people to go to his official website.
Maria's campaign removed the deep link and that was the end of the matter.
Since the interweb has absolutely no relation to reality, how could any sane entity consider any of it legally binding?!!
The World Wide Web -- "For amusement purposes only"
Just like I have to pay the phone company not to be listed ("linked-to") in the white pages!
Aren't Netscape bookmarks just hyperlinks stored in a file called bookmark.htm? Does this mean we have to obtain permission to create a bookmark to any of these sites?
What is 'linking'? The act of creating an 'a href' tag? The posting of that tag on a publicly accessible site? The act of clicking on a 'link'?
I can AIM 'www.logicreate.com' to someone - I've not 'made' a link. AOL's AIM client makes it into a link. Same for most email clients. The person who wrote http://www.phphelpdesk.com in an email didn't 'make' a link - the email software I chose to use created it for me.
So, it seems that instead of 'linking', there needs to be a clearer definition. 'Don't visit us without our express written permission' might be clearer.
I'm interested to know how many of these same companies with these stupid 'linking policies' have links on their intranets to common websites that also have stupid 'linking policies'.
creation science book
I've seen a lot of emotion-filled comments and speculation about this topic, but let's try and consider this seriously for a second.
I'm not going to address the technical side of this - we all know how easy it is to prevent linking, or whatever. We also know, if you have static HTML pages, there's no way to prevent someone from linking to them.
Why, exactly, is any website _required_ to permit another page to link to it? I have yet to see a _real_ answer to this question. ("Because they should" is not a real answer, neither is "because they can't stop you".)
Suppose, for a second, that I run Joe's Widget Company. I sell widgets. Jack Sixpack has this great idea for a gadget which uses my widgets. He advertises this on his site, and provides a link back to my site. Suddenly, however, Jack's gadgets go horribly wrong and cause people bodily harm. People will think that I endorsed his use of my widgets. (People _will_ think that, regardless of how stupid it may seem). Sure, I could put a disclaimer on my site, saying "I do not endorse Jack's use of my widgets", but that assumes I know about it. Why should I have to search the web every week or so to find a new link to my site, check out the linking site, and see if I need to post a disclaimer? That takes time and time is money.
And in today's litigation-happy society, one needs to cover one's ass more than ever. If you know exactly who links to your site, you have a defense against any false endorsements, or incorrect statements or whatever. If a linking site suddely changes what they have to say about you, you tell them not to link to you anymore. Sure, they may do it anyway, but at least you can say "Sorry, your Honor, but we told them to remove that link."
Certainly attempting to use legal methods to enforce linking policies won't work. However, there's nothing wrong with asking people who desire to link to a site to fill out a form or email the webmaster. It's common courtesy. It also provides a paper trail if commercial activity is involved.
And then there's the bandwidth factor. Say I have this really cool Lego Mindstorms project that I want people to see. I put up some pictures on my web page and point some friends at it. Then it gets picked up by Slashdot, where thousands of people all attempt to view it at the same time, which uses up my monthly bandwidth allocation in exactly 2 minutes, and causes my computer to melt. That's quite unfortunate for me. I think I should have been asked beforehand, and then given the opportunity to maybe find some mirrors, or let Google cache it , or something.
This, of course, is where people might say "Don't post stuff on the web if you don't expect people to look at it." or "Get a connection that allows you more bandwidth." Any intelligent person knows that these are not acceptable answers for the average user. If I post something on a page, I expect a few people to look at it, but I don't expect (nor should I have to) a million people to attempt to view the page all at the same time, without prior warning.
All this "Fuck you, I'll link to whatever I want" attitude is lame and counter-productive. It will only serve to discourage people from posting cool things on computers that have slow connections or limited bandwidth. Sure, if it's something like cnn.com, or C|NET, or the New York Times, we know their servers can take a lot of hits. But if it's some guy who posted a cool case mod on his computer connected by MediaOne or whatever, then give him a break, and send him a quick e-mail before you link to it. It's just common courtesy. But then again, common courtesy seems to be non-existant these days.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
At least this case of deeping linking threat turned out better. But they still have problems with pinheads running the place at Belo, as the policy is still there for their flagship newspaper.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Email them requesting permission to link to their site, including an actual link to the page you want to link to in the email.
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
hi, welcome to my comment. if you are reading this comment, then you must have web surfed through slashdot to get to it. web surfing is a strange, complex, newfangled technical concept that you may not understand, because i certainly don't understand it myself. that's why i publish my comments to this weird web surfing place to begin with. see?
;-P
the point is i don't allow people to web surf to my comments. i only explicitly allow people to view my comments who contact me first. that is why i post comments on slashdot in the first place. do you get it?! good, because i don't. but i have the right to dictate to you how it works even though i don't understand it. ok?! ok?!
now that you have read this comment, please email me and get permission first before you read this comment in the first place! understand?! no???!!! DO I HAVE TO SUE YOU NOW?!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
All UFO spotters should stop by Art Bell's website: www.artbell.com. Art Bell is an excellent resource for those investigating UFOs. His radio show is heard every night in North America after midnight. Tune across your AM radio dial and you will be sure to find the fascinating world of Art Bell. Art Bell is where UFO research begins.
Q: Which of these scenarios results in higher bandwidth costs?
A. A mandated link to the home page, where a user then has to mill about the site, trying to find the page they're looking for
B. A (deep) link to the exact page containing the information of interest
This makes me wonder if something else is going on here. Is it possible that sites with policies against deep linking experience more overall traffic?
Policies against deep linking (though I'm sure there are exceptions), constitute poor implemention of a web site. In other words, if I can't link to any of the pages individually - or visit the site through such links - it's probably not worth my time in the first place. The link, after all, is one of the primary elements that distinguishes the web from other types of media.
Look at the bottom... ..."The Linking Policy for Don't Link to Us! precludes us from requesting permission to link to a site, and compels us to link directly to the targeted page (i.e., a "deep link") rather than to a site's home page. "...
Sure, there are technical solutions to unwanted (by the author) copying, security and so on. But let's say there is a guy who wants to sell t-shirts and offer his MP3 files on an unpatched IIS NT4.0 server. Let's say his front page has a sign saying that he can make the thing more secure, but then he'll have to charge (more) money to pay IT consultants and hosting services. Shouldn't we try to respect his wish and just link to the poor guy's front page?
Unlike most I dont think there should be laws against spam: instead why not fix spam in a technical manner.
One simple solution would be only to accept mail from joe@XYZ.com only from XYZ.com's mailserver.
Second would be to make it cost-innefective for the spammer: if your mail program required a handshake (such as a herbivore public-key exchange) and then an encrypted message content, The spammer would have to individually encrypt and send each email to each recipient. This would make spamming vastly unprofitable.
There are many other solution such as these, and there should never be need for stupid laws. I see an smtp server as no different than an http one.
What's next? We will not be allowed to bookmark these sites? After all, saving a bookmark is just saving a link. Or maybe a big "DO NO READ" warning.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Have a look at how The Register ISP doesn't let you link to some stories on The Register.
In answer to the mealy mouthed reply from The Register that they won't enforce that policy, I can only say: then don't have that policy.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
if they don't want anyone to link to them then maybe they should unplug their server from the internet, shut down their server, and cancel their accounts...
All along, I've been trying to promote my site by encouraging people to link to it. Now I see. If I just forbid people to link to my site I will get some links to it. Yes!
I seem to have read in more than one place recently that empirical evidence suggests that linking to your site, especially from other highly linked/ranked sites is a major factor in Googles ranking for search results. Thus if people actually respect these sites wish's they will eliminate themsleves from the HTTP gene pool.....
I'm never going to profess to be an expert on this topic, but here's my take on it:
It's not illegal for me to refer you to Joe's Pizza. I could also tell you where Joe's Pizza is and supply you with directions. I could also tell you where to find the Joe's Pizza menu (for example's sake, on the counter by the cash register, in the restaurant).
So where's the difference if:
My website refers you to Joe's Pizza website, and I supply you with directions (which in the context of the internet is providing a URL) and I tell you where to find Joe's Pizza menu (propviding a deep link).
If Joe doesn't want you coming in his restaurant, he can deny you entry, and it's the same with the website, but is there any legal ground for a person or business to prevent another person or business from making references, regardless of whether they are hypertext links or word of mouth? Couldn't this almost be a constitutional issue?
RTFM; please, I beg you.
Do these sites think that people will just randomly type in their address without searching for it? You know they're going to search engines, and they'll link to the site...and that violates their asinine policy.
"All art is quite useless." -- Oscar Wilde
That's like putting up a sign in your front yard and making it illegal for people to look at it.
Karma: NaN
When I copy/paste an adress into the browsers adress bar and then press enter.
This is perfectly legal, no?
So how can it be any different if this task is accomplished automatically by a computer?!?
When you right an anchor tag in html, it is the SAME thing as if you say "reference: book XYZ page 32 par. 4".
The ONLY difference is that the content is electronic instead of being on paper.
And that you do not have to open the book yourself
And that is the purpose of the internet.
Those who claims otherwise are missing the point.
A website is NOT like a store, into which you HAVE to enter by the front door, instead of breaking a window.
It is just an arrangement of documents, which happen to be electronics, with which you are able to have a certain level of interactivity.
I'd rather be sailing...
For incoming mail proxies, you could obviously configure your smtp agent to "trust" one upstream mail server. Thats hugely different than trusting the whole internet.
As for virtual domains, so long as they resolve to the correct machine its not a problem. If the mx records resolve to your ISP's mail server, THATS FINE, it doesnt care about the other record types.
Its not poorly thought out, its the way things should have been done from the beginning.
Other Ideas:
To keep linking to a minimum. Copy the colors and table structure (but not the nav bars) of the site into the linked page, put some porn on it, and put "Hacked by Chinese" at the bottom. (Or Nimda or whatever) Update the links in your site to avoid this page. Put it up on Friday night, delete it on Monday. Claim you know nothing about it.
Use a server redirect to Goatse.cx or some other web site.
Rename all your images, replace them with porn pics, be sure to update your IMG tags.
Most clueless users will assume the originating web site is deliberately linking to porn and will contact them to complain.
Change the file to a frameset that links back to the original site. Get paid by the banner ads you serve in your portion of the frame.
After a few weeks of this, they will stop linking.
Hyperlinks are one of those things on the internet that sort of relies on both parties sort of getting along. Either one can mess it up.
I assume that also any site that has significant ad revenue, will be wanting to protect their money stream they artificially created by breaking documents up to 10 pages or by making the site structure too deep.
In my opinion, lawyers should be the last line of defense or offense, not the first. This is just another instance of it getting all twisted around.
That'll teach you to mod down my critical friend!
Mod me down, I'll just post again. I got 50 Karma to burn...
Serious, Why bother marking him down anyway? It's a waste of moderation points to mod up the good stuff.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Once again, western ideals here folks. Lots of sites in Japan have very explict no linking policies, and it is considered perfectly polite to make such requests (and down right rude to not obey them!)
/is/ rather st00pid, the fact is that:
/sueing/ over such issues is rather stupid, but if some site sends you a 'please take down your link to our site' letter then hey, it IS their site. They where actualy nice enough to warn you, they could have just shoved up a HTTP referer block and said screw you to your content. (admitedly many of the idiot admins who do the cease and desist letters are to stupid to figure out how to do such but. . . . heh)
While I will admit that commerical sites with no linking policies
The site belongs to the owner
The owner is paying for bandwidth and hosting
The owner can invite who ever they want on to their site.
Now granted
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
It was on slashdot last week. The actual story is here.
There was some debate as to whether that made the book into a gift and/or unordered merchandise (under the laws of the postal service), or if the shrinkwrapped contract was enforceable. While the postal rules say you can recieve it as a gift, the cover states that opening the shrinkwrap implies acceptance of the license agreement.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
I assume the point of this is to link to places that try (illegally???) to prevent people from linking?
Is that illegal? I assume there are court cases or something, yet there is no info on that web site nor does there seem to be any here, at least in the first few dozens of comments.
I remember reading someplace that the Communications Act of 1934 made it legal to receive any signal that was broadcast. I may be wrong, and I know most (if not all) of the Communications Act of 1934 has been superceded, but the point is, we need someone, somewhere to make a ruling that says if you are publishing information on the Web and not preventing deep links through technical means, then it is legal to link to those pages directly.
All the arguments showing how deep linking can be abused are flawed. They are the same arguments that the media companies used when lobbying for the DMCA. "It could be used to steal content, therefore it should be illegal." "Deep linking might be used to slander somone so it should be illegal".
There are technical means of stopping people from entering your website except through the front door. If you don't want deep linking, then use steps to prevent it. Otherwise, we are going to assume that it's okay.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
I would love to see the face of the lawyer the newpaper that takes action, when they see Sorkin, Lessig, Tyre at the defendants table, then 50 or so students of Sorkin taken notes for class, as this is their new class project.
Fight Spammers!
Isn't this leaglly handled with existing copyright law?
I would imagine that someone trying to look official would use much of the same written material already on the real website.
They may own the trademark for "The Way to Happiness" but at least they don't have it patented.
Interesting that this story should be posted on /. since I have recently become embroiled in a linking controversy with my university. I and another student have started a small business where students can sell their used textbooks on consignment near campus (off campus because the university's bookstore, owned by Follett has been granted a monopoly on the university grounds). We needed to "deep link" to a university webpage explaining changes in the class numbering system, but are reportedly on the verge of being served with legal action against us for doing so.
As students, we obviously cannot afford a protracted legal action against us by a university intent on defending Follett's monopoly. Should we copy the content of the university page onto a page of our own (with modifications), or continue linking? We have looked but not found the university's linking policy. Do we actually need permission to link?
Wouldn't it make more sense to prohibit children under 13 and acknowledge that linking can't be blocked?
(Linking actually can be blocked, using technical means, but they'd rather just speak their mystic words...)
You have a choice: tax and spend Democrats, or borrow and spend Republicans. Choose wisely.
This site sucks! Try ipkonfig.com instead!
Linking to a website which forbids it in a Slashdot article: ROFLMAOUTB-piss-your-pants funny.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
Last time I checked, HTTP was a stateless protocol. You make requests for resources, and the server responds in kind.
What the fsck is a deep link? It's a meaningless term. The WWW server makes no distinction between links and "deep links"; as far as it cares, they're the same.
If you don't want people accessing your site without first going through the homepage, then don't let them! Why people are pursuing unenforceable legal solutions to technical issues is beyond me.
I don't think you get it. I have a web site, it is on www.netmar.com for hosting. Their MX record points to mail.netmar.com. My domains have mail.netmar.com as their MX. I check my mail by POPing mail.netmar.com. Netmar does not have SMTP available.
This is what mx records were supposed to be for: if you want the mail service to be run on a different machine for a domain than the web service, you set the mx records appropriately. mx records are supposed to be for SMTP servers.
Why should everyone make themselves vulnerable to source address spoofing just so you can contiune having a misconfigured DNS?
And if you have an ISP that blocks outgoing packets based on port number, well they just suck. Avoid them like the plague. You have no business running a mail server behind a "ISP" that has a noservers policy anyway.
From CIBA's linking policy:
Terms and Conditions
1. You may download, display or print information from this Site (the "Information") solely for non-commercial personal use.
2. You must retain and reproduce each and every copyright notice or other proprietary rights notice contained in any Information you download. You may not, however, distribute, modify, transmit, reuse, repost, or use the content of the Site for public or commercial purposes, including the text, images, audio, and video without written permission of CIBA Vision. You should assume that everything you see or read on this Site is copyrighted unless otherwise noted and may not be used except as provided in these Terms and Conditions or in the text on the Site without the written permission of CIBA Vision.
But...
6. Any communication or material you transmit to the Site by electronic mail or otherwise, including any data, questions, comments, suggestions or the like is, and will be treated as, nonconfidential and nonproprietary. Anything you transmit or post becomes the property of CIBA Vision or its affiliates and may be used for any purpose, including, but not limited to, reproduction, disclosure, transmission, publication, broadcast and posting. Furthermore, CIBA Vision is free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques contained in any communication you send to the Site for any purpose whatsoever including, but not limited to, developing, manufacturing and marketing products using such information.
So, by the same logic, I'll just insert into my HTTP request:
HTTP Policy:
Any communication or material you or your web server transmit to this computer, by HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, or otherwise, including any data, multimedia, computer code, or the like, is, and will be treated as, nonconfidential and nonproprietary. Anything so transmitted becomes the property of myself and my affiliates and may be used for any purpose whatsoever, including, but not limited to, reproduction, disclosure, transmission, publication, broadcast, modification, redistribution, or reverse engineering. Furthermore, I am free to use any data, text, logos, trademarks, or correspondence contained in any communication you send to me for any purpose whatsoever including, but not limited to, satire, parody, and general mockery.
There is a spellbook here; eat it? [ynq]
I love sites with what amount to EULAs..."Here are the terms of visiting this site" -- sorry but the whole debacle over deep linking follows suit. If you have a website, it is essentially by default public access. If you have content which you do not want others to get to via deep links, then implement referrer checks or secure the content. Sorry, but linking is not illegal...at least not yet. K.
I guess your ISP does not block port 25. And the recipient's server has to be set up to accept mail from dial-up pools; many do not. At least, when I tried that a couple of years ago, the server I tried to use wouldn't let me in from the dial-up-like block my DSL address is in.
And ISPs blocking port 25 is pretty common; mine's done it, so I can't access an authenticated SMTP server directly, I have to proxy to it on port 26 because some mail clients hard-code the port number.
None of this would be needed if spam wasn't a problem.
Netmar does run SMTP service, for incoming mail only, they do not relay,[snip] , the customers simply use their ISPs mail server as relay.
So there is an SMTP daemon running at your hosting provider that will recieve messages destined for you, bit wont accept messages coming from you? Unlikely, since receiving is the resource intensive part. Regardless, you cant reach port 25 on that machine from your ISP because they require you to use their relay? That pretty much isolates the problem, right at the ISP. Maybe youll look for a new ISP when they start appending pr0n spam attachments to all outgoing mail...
Something unforseen in DNS: the possibility that someones recieve SMTP might be different than their transmit SMTP, or that anyone would care what their transmit SMTP was at all. If there was such a concept, youd be in business.
On the other hand, If your ISP will relay, could you not also get them to recieve incoming email for you? (they are an ISP)
Tele-workers without a VPN connection
Doing evening work from home without a VPN connection
Doing weekend work from home without a VPN connection
Working while "on the road" without a VPN connection
The same mechanism allows pretty much anyone to send mail supposedly from you.
And VPN connections right new are relatively primitive, I agree, hard to setup and not very well standardized.(Unless you know openssh, with which you can setup a secure tunnel trivially)
The solution being currently to accept email as a wild free-for-all, to put up with spam or try to block it with crude hueristics, and to count on people not to forge source addresses to much. This just doesnt sit well with me. Why do we all accept this sorry state so readily?
this must be why i can't search google with altavista
http://www.google.com/robots.txt
I find it rather ironic that at least one of the sites mentioned (UK Universities) itself uses links to pages on other sites that are not the front pages. Indeed, some of them are pages it links to are quite far down the directory tree of the other sites! Isn't this the whole point of hypertext?
I've been considering the idea of only allowing deep linking on my site. If anyone comes to my index page without passing through another page on my site, I would wisk them away to another galaxy or something.
With regard to sites checking the http_referer header, most personal firewalls allow you to block that. Doing that makes it appear that you arrived just by typing in the URL.
Also, couldn't you just use javascript (document.location = someurl) to link to a site. That should prevent the http_referer field and the destination server wouldn't know you came from another site.
I think we should all honor their requests.
Why don't we all help by submitting withdrawals from Google, Yahoo and other places where it is highly likely they have been linked from?
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
is why they're trying legal (as in using the law) approaches to technical problems, something that normally cannot be done. Technical problems need technical solutions.
Because if they went after technical solutions to technical problems, they would be paying a computer consultant $90-$150/hour, rather than billing out $500/hour for a lawyer to waste the court's time with this nonsense.
Since the law and most of the court system is of, by, and for lawyers (and this is doubly true for so-called 'intellectual property' law and lawyers), is anyone really surprised to see $500/hour lawyers on both sides billing out time, when a 5 minute modification to an apache server by a $150/hour computer jockey would have sufficed?
It really has almost gotten to the point where the only viable solution to this particular societal ill is going to become the Shakespearian solution: hang all the lawyers.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
that's all true, but put it in this light:
for the organization that wants restricted linking, which is cheaper? Hiring someone to add a few lines to apache's config file? Or hiring a lawyer to file a suit? Chances are good that there's already a technician available to have the fix me made, OTOH hiring a lawyer may mean searching for one, which alone costs more than the tech's fix, hiring him, usually with up-front costs, then the actual suit, fees for the court (something has to pay the judges and staff), etc.
I actually read a paper last week about broadcast encryption. The author doesnt directly say it, but he claims that if CSS had used a broadcast encryption scheme, DeCSS would not exist. Hence, the MPAA's need for the DMCA would have been (mostly) non-existant.
Examples like these show why lawyers that deal with technology policy need to understand technology before laying down those policies. Many (All?) of the lawyers who write a website's linking policy simply dont know about the webserver's ability to blacklist a http-referrer. If they did, then many would have the techs configure the server in that manner.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.