Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Nigritude, Indignation, Artifacts

Slashback brings you updates this evening on a handful of previous and ongoing Slashdot stories: read on below for more on how to manipulate Google rankings, what's wrong with Sun's Java Desktop, Claria's plucky response to L.L. Bean's suit, and a fly in the infinite-twin-primes theory.

How to not make friends and influence rankings. Ben Michel contributes an update to the search-engine optimization (SEO) contest mentioned last month, the object of which was for contestants to create a site ranked highest by google for a nonsense phrase, "nigritude ultramarine."

Michel writes "The first phase of the competition ended last Monday, and the winner was the owner of a forum called nigritude ultramarine--previously known as Merkey.net. According to Brandon Suit, the owner of this forum, the key to his winning strategy was "getting high PR backlinks"--having other websites with high Page Ranks link to him and vice versa.

What impact does this have on SEO, and indeed for the rapidly growing search industry in general? The viability of certain underhanded methods in the pursuit of SEO has been clearly reinforced by many of the results of the contest--both Suit and his closest competitor, Philipp Lenssen, posted links in Wiki Sandboxes in order to better their standing. According to Suit, "If you want to manipulate [Google], you can." While search engines certainly have come a long ways from relevance-based searching, it seems that they still have significant changes to make before they can more accurately order results for any given query. The search engines' creators themselves must make countless revisions in their own, perhaps quixotic, quests to create the perfect tools to retrieve relevant data in the vast, ever-expanding realm of the internet."

However, not everyone is as matter-of-fact about this method of increasing search-engine visibility; May Kasahara is one of the webmasters and wiki users who isn't.

Kasahara writes: "The Search Engine Optimization contest previously mentioned on Slashdot has had a detrimental effect on wiki users and admins (including myself) lately , as the words 'Nigritude Ultramarine' have been showing up in wiki sandboxes across the web. A search on UseModWiki's homepage brought me to this informative entry, which in turn led me to Nigritude Ultramarine and the Wiki Sandbox Effect [note -- mentioned last week on Slashdot] and to these accompanying comments, mostly from very annoyed wiki users."

OK, so maybe "infinite" was a strong word. Prof.Phreak writes "Quoting wikipedia: On May 26, 2004, Richard Arenstorf of Vanderbilt University submitted a 38-page proof that there are, in fact, infinitely many twin primes. On June 3, Michel Balazard of Bordeaux reported that Lemma 8 on page 35 is false.[1] As is typical in mathematical proofs, the defect may be correctable or a substitute method may repair or replace the defect. Arenstorf withdrew his proof on June 8, noting "A serious error has been found in the paper, specifically, Lemma 8 is incorrect"."

What are these dashed lines all over your sacred cow? reifman writes "Slashdot's link to my article in the Seattle Weekly helped generate 175,000 page views and numerous letters and comments. The article seemed to touch a nerve in the Mac and Linux communities. I've posted a follow up responding to people's letters."

Updates from the Academic Affairs Division. zenrandom writes "As Case Western has just recently been reported, we may as well mention the initiative that will be connecting many schools in Ohio. Oarnet, a part of the Ohio Supercomputer Center and The Ohio State University is building a statewide academic and research fiber optic network. Composed of multiple metro-rings and over 1600 miles of fiber."

In unrelated college news, Mirell writes "After the FBI previously investigated an open records request filed for the tunnel blueprints at UT, students decide instead to enter via brute force. Hooligans - 1, War Against Terror - 0."

The problem with opening Pandora's Box. WC writes "The previous review on JDS2 ended with no successful installation so it wasn't very helpful on what to expect from the Sun distro. This new review has got a working installation but with a slew of new problems: more installation woes, unusable networking, buggy Nautilus and Mozilla window resizing artifacts among others. The author concludes that JDS2 is --effectively-- nothing but JDS 1.1 with the added Sun server software on top, but the desktop part has the same (and more) issues like JDS1 had."

Looking innocent is not their strong suit. tbase writes "As reported on News.com.com, Claria, formerly known as Gator, has sued L.L. Bean, charging the retailer with filing a frivolous lawsuit against its advertisers. As covered in a previous Slashdot story, L.L. Bean has filed suit against current and former Claria advertisers for advertising via pop ups over L.L. Bean's site."

181 comments

  1. Google results? by Three+Headed+Man · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, I know one way to get great results. All you have to do it be Litigious bastards and you're set.

    --
    I'm probably at the karma cap. Mod up a funny troll instead, it lightens the mood :)
    1. Re:Google results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More appropriate for this story: Litigious bastards.

    2. Re:Google results? by Senjutsu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Such an effort is doomed to be a miserable failure.

    3. Re:Google results? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      How many others have a sig like mine? Of course, it doesn't help, since it's a link to Slashdot itself.

      While we're at it, try Google's I'm Feeling Lucky on miserable failure [whitehouse.gov], weapons of mass destruction [blueyonder.co.uk], french military victories [albinoblacksheep.com], or anti-war peace protestors [albinoblacksheep.com].

    4. Re:Google results? by akgoatley · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, if you think about it, what we want is "SCO" to point to "litigiousbastards.com" as people are more likely to search for "SCO" than "litigious bastards". Join the fight! Visit SCO's website!

      --
      (-(friend^2))^(1/2)
      Incoming mod-bombing for having a different viewpoint, 2 o'clock! Heads up!
    5. Re:Google results? by john_smith_45678 · · Score: 2

      Better than somebody who waffles.

    6. Re:Google results? by kop · · Score: 1

      just searching for "bastards" returns SCO #1 too now : )

    7. Re:Google results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, I think I'd rather have a successful waffler than a miserable failure who makes himself the laughing-stock of the world with his malapropisms. Give us a president that even the French can respect, and we'll see a lot less anti-Americanism...

    8. Re:Google results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The French can fuck off.

      A successful waffler? What a fucking oxymoron!

    9. Re:Google results? by pommaq · · Score: 2, Funny

      SEO? SCO? Whatever, to me it's all just a load of Santorum.

    10. Re:Google results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:Google results? by YouMakeMeSoANGRY · · Score: 1

      No French military victories?

      How about The American Revolution?

    12. Re:Google results? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      No it isn't.

    13. Re:Google results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Give us a president that even the French can respect, and we'll see a lot less anti-Americanism...

      Jerry Lewis for president?

    14. Re:Google results? by gosand · · Score: 1
      Well, I know one way to get great results. All you have to do it be Litigious bastards and you're set.

      Hmm, contest for a highly ranked nonsensical sounding website? Slash Dot Dot Org

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    15. Re:Google results? by Pinky · · Score: 1

      Waffles? What about Bacon and Eggs.

    16. Re:Google results? by Mikkeles · · Score: 1
      Another means is to be an unprincipled, ignorant, mean liar like Ken Brown.

      (You also may want to read his rant against offshore outsourcing.)

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    17. Re:Google results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is.

    18. Re:Google results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is he still alive??

    19. Re:Google results? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      I didn't say I agreed with it. Matter of fact, I wouldn't call a man who managed to be the most powerful guy in the world too much of a failure....

    20. Re:Google results? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      No, it hasn't. I added the extra [example.com] text after the link manually, just to be nice; it's static text that reflects the current status of the search. It would be a grand resource hog for Slashdot look up the top result on Google for each Lucky-felt comment after each Google update cycle.

      (Score: -1)
      Did I just give an intelligent answer to an intelligent question by a troll!?

    21. Re:Google results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    22. Re:Google results? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      I know you are... but what am I?

  2. Lemma? No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Arenstorf withdrew his proof on June 8, noting "A serious error has been found in the paper, specifically, Lemma 8 is incorrect".

    I guess that Lemma turned out to be a real Lemon, eh?

    *symbol crash* ba-dom-bom

    Thank you! I'll be here all week!

  3. Here it comes... by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 0

    Let the juvenile "nigritude" comments begin.

    Start using the word around the office, along with "niggardly" and then you will indeed be living in interesting times...

    1. Re:Here it comes... by NoData · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except that nigritude actually has to do with blackness (at least the color), whereas the more vulgar sounding "niggardly" has nothing to do with color or race. However, contrast the neologism negritude which is about blackness in racial terms.

    2. Re:Here it comes... by Phybersyk0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'll bite. However I'll prolly get killed for this one..

      "Nigri-please?!"

  4. PageRank. by salvorHardin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Idea of having lots of high-ranking back-links is most certainly an effective one. I used to have a plain old personal homepage, which was ranked as '1' by google, and then I added a link to my site on my page at h2g2, and watched my rank go up to 4 within a week. Sadly, it didn't last...

    1. Re:PageRank. by iserlohn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And this property is being exploited endlessly. Google needs to find a way to recognize the contribution of a site, rather than just its content and the links. There are tons of sites out there that the sole purpose is to link to other sites and prop up their rankings.

    2. Re:PageRank. by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I added my website to my sig. Within a week, I had a shitload of spam attached to my article #1.

      At least I'm still the first link when you google for "das megabyte." Like I'm sure you always do. I'm also the third link down when you google for "Sorry, ryan."

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  5. Claria suing another company??? by The+Ancients · · Score: 4, Funny
    What is this - a game?

    Half time - change sides....

    I wonder what the half time pep talk would have been like in the Claria camp:

    Now troops, we're going to need to pay for filing motions, and all that other stuff that comes along with suing someone, as well as our defence lawyers.

    WADDYA MEAN WE SPENT IT ALL ON REBRANDING???....oh that's right (*fights through the fog of denial*)...we were Gator *blushes*

  6. Annoyance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am a member of the merkey.net forums. While it is (probably) a good thing to have a Slashdot article, it was really annoying to have "nigritude ultramarine" posted everywhere on our forums for two months. All that for an iPod and a monitor too...

    1. Re:Annoyance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i looked at the site for 5 seconds then left, I dont know what the real focus of the site is for, but i am sure your new-member list has sagged to an all time low during this time (unless, of course, people are more retarted then i give them credit, and sign up to things that do not make sense for fun, damn look at slashdot, they do)

  7. Darl is a googler. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Darl let it be known today in the conference call that he uses google to search the net.

    Apparently they irony of that, seeing how Darl's position is that ''linux is destroying the foundation of the industry!'', is completely lost on him.

  8. Use NOINDEX or Robots.txt for Sandbox? by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The sandbox is a junk area where users can play right? So change the .htaccess to use Follow, NoIndex and google should be blind to them. Or the robots.txt file to block access.

    Is there some reason you would want the Sandbox indexed?

    1. Re:Use NOINDEX or Robots.txt for Sandbox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You mean NoFollow, Index, surely?

    2. Re:Use NOINDEX or Robots.txt for Sandbox? by wersh · · Score: 1
      So change the .htaccess to use Follow, NoIndex and google should be blind to them. Or the robots.txt file to block access.

      Shouldn't that be the the other way around? The robots.txt file can use Follow, NoIndex to ask Google to go blind, while .htaccess can be used to block access.

      I'm not too well versed in .htaccess files, but I'm fairly certain they aren't used to tell spiders to not index pages. And I know for a fact that a robots.txt file isn't going to block access to anything--it's merely a request that most spiders politely follow.

    3. Re:Use NOINDEX or Robots.txt for Sandbox? by Eric+Savage · · Score: 1

      And how does this prevent sandbox pages from being targetted by spambots? If you think telling a spammer his technique doesn't work will stop him, you don't know spammers very well.

      --

      This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
    4. Re:Use NOINDEX or Robots.txt for Sandbox? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Unless a Search engine that disobeys robots.txt gets it and along the way Google picks up on THAT listing.

    5. Re:Use NOINDEX or Robots.txt for Sandbox? by jcuervo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Shouldn't that be the the other way around? The robots.txt file can use Follow, NoIndex to ask Google to go blind, while .htaccess can be used to block access.
      Correct. Basically, robots.txt is client-side, .htaccess is server-side.

      The latter is also far more powerful. robots.txt was created brain-dead.
      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
    6. Re:Use NOINDEX or Robots.txt for Sandbox? by goobar · · Score: 1

      Obviously, by telling google not to index a page, bad evil spammers will not be able to find it, when they search for "wiki sandbox" in google.

    7. Re:Use NOINDEX or Robots.txt for Sandbox? by lboxman · · Score: 1

      If you do this, they will simply start putting stuff on other pages of the wiki. This happened to a wiki that I frequent.

      --
      Regexes are like cocaine. The first hit is pretty good, but afterwards you try to use them to solve all your problems.
    8. Re:Use NOINDEX or Robots.txt for Sandbox? by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

      Maybe I do. I'm not sure. I don't know how PageRank works, but my idea is that if you tell the spider not to index something, but still follow links then it would break the PageRank score of that link. You would be coming from an unindexed page to an indexed page which would be like starting over.

      Of course I don't know how the ranking really works.

    9. Re:Use NOINDEX or Robots.txt for Sandbox? by Gleef · · Score: 2, Informative

      In addition to making the sandbox harder to find, it also means that spamming that sandbox will be less valuable, since the spam link won't enter into the ranking.

      Since Wiki Sandboxes are for people who want to use that Wiki, having the sandboxes not show up on searches hurts nobody. That is, nobody except for the Wiki admin, who has the initial nuisance of having to reconfigure apache, set up robots.txt, etc.

      --

      ----
      Open mind, insert foot.
    10. Re:Use NOINDEX or Robots.txt for Sandbox? by ePhil_One · · Score: 1
      And how does this prevent sandbox pages from being targetted by spambots?

      This is not the spam you are looking for...

      The parent wasn't refering to e-mail spam, but rather google-spam, jerks posting links to their website on your site to prop up their rankings. The idea was to kill the usefulness of the technique by blocking Googlebot from the areas that are vulnerable to this sort of spam.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
  9. Dear Slashdot by Letter · · Score: 5, Funny
    Dear Slashdot,

    It seems, unfortunately, that comment #9393632, story #110689, is wrong. Simply take v_0=1, r(v):=(1+\cos v)/\sqrt v, \rho(v)=3/\sqrt v, and \phi(v)=v. I imagine that such a mistake has heavy consequences.

    Sincerely,
    Letter

  10. Re:Lemma? No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    Thank you! I'll be here all week!

    After a joke like that? Not if someone gets you with those symbols first...

  11. Mwahahah by The+Bungi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    OK, so the "Microsoftie" sacred cow follow up quotes this from a Slashdot comment in the story, theorizing that "he couldn't have put it better":
    "In his lust to dominate the browser market and bring down Netscape, Bill and his cronies decided to give Internet Explorer away for free. They succeeded in undermining Netscape and getting the lion's share of the browser market, but in the process they got an entire generation of users hooked on getting stuff for free. Once users get a taste of free, getting them to pay for stuff becomes difficult or impossible. Why pay for a browser when I can get it for free? Why pay for an operating system when I can get it for free? Why pay for software when I can get it for free? Why pay for music when I can get it for free? Why pay for movies when I can get them for free? In the end, it isn't just Microsoft that's hurt by this."
    Heh. This, coming from the "teh softwarez must be free-as-in-um-actually-i'm-just-cheap" crowd (which unfortunately makes up the majority of the people who use open source) is absolutely hilarious.

    In any case, Microsoft has given software away for ages. Suddenly because they gave away IE, the world is on track to become evil purveyors of stolen... things.

    If that isn't ironic I don't know what is.

    1. Re:Mwahahah by Grrr · · Score: 1

      I'm in no mood to defend or praise M$, but... okay.

      Any quote which contains ...in the process they got an entire generation of users hooked on getting stuff for free. - as if that attitude was somehow new (cf. the difficulty in launching a successful micropayment or online-currency biz, '95 - present) must've been written by a twentysomething.
      ("Not that there's anything wrong with that"...)

      <grrr>

    2. Re:Mwahahah by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, No - This is good

      If I ever get an RIAA extortion letter I can just explain that I have a long standing habit of getting free stuff from the internet and that complaining at this late date is pointless because it's become the established norm. Kinda of like common law marriages or squatters rights.

    3. Re:Mwahahah by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why pay for music when I can get it for free? Why pay for movies when I can get them for free?

      The concept is basically right, but it's misapplied. The public is addicted to free music and movies because they've been getting them for free on TV and radio for decades. THAT's why P2P is not viewed as wrong by the public- "because TV is free anyhow"

      Suddenly because they gave away IE, the world is on track to become evil purveyors of stolen... things.

      That's not what was meant at all. The Slashdotter's theory was that consumers addicted to free software would look for... wait for it... Free Software.

    4. Re:Mwahahah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, the Open Sores crowd has never been about consistency. Free is bad if it's not *their* kind of free. But if it IS their kind of free, then writing software for no pay somehow promotes employment.

    5. Re:Mwahahah by NickFortune · · Score: 1
      Heh. This, coming from the "teh softwarez must be free-as-in-um-actually-i'm-just-cheap" crowd (which unfortunately makes up the majority of the people who use open source) is absolutely hilarious.
      Yep. Guilty as charged. If I wasn't so cheap, I'd not only pay SCO $699 for a runtime licence, I'd post to slashdot telling everyone what a bargain it was.

      It makes me wonder: if "greed is good" how come "cheap is bad?" Is frugality only a virtue when practiced by CEOs?

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    6. Re:Mwahahah by Osty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not what was meant at all. The Slashdotter's theory was that consumers addicted to free software would look for... wait for it... Free Software.

      But Free Software doesn't have to be free software! (Thank you, RMS, for that genious naming scheme.) Remember, it's free as in speech, not free as in beer.

    7. Re:Mwahahah by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People may point out that most 'free' tv is paid for by watching ads, and that consumers are mistaken in counting that as free. But, what if the consumer is aware of that, and it still gives rise to the current situation? A typical hour long TV program has about 8 minutes of commercials. For a person who makes minimum wage, 8 minutes of time is worth about 75 cents, IF he treats all his time as worth as much as work, and that's itself debatable. If 52 minutes of entertainment has a base value of only about 75 cents, or argueably less, then what's the 'fair' price of a music download? 75 cents for a number of tracks the consumer will listen to for 52 minutes total? A two hour movie watched once? $1.68? For as person making 11 bucks an hour, that "fair" value is more like 3 dollars, by the same reasoning. There's going to be some price points where the 'fair' value of downloads looks about even with the amount a person pays for internet access or a commercial news server, even though none of that money is going to the content producer.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    8. Re:Mwahahah by Alsee · · Score: 1

      A typical hour long TV program has about 8 minutes of commercials.

      What planet are you from?

      Can I move there?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    9. Re:Mwahahah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Customers deciding what they want? That's just crazy talk! Next thing you know, car buyers will be demanding that we give them all four wheels!

      Now that these Open Source commies have revealed that it doesn't actually cost $399 to manufacture an empty box with a CD in it, we're screwed! Say goodbye to 85% profit margins!

      Competition SUCKS!

    10. Re:Mwahahah by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      I didn't go into some tangental assumptions in what was already a lengthy post.
      In terms of what is only a "percieved" price instead of a real market derived one, it's probably fair to not include "station identification", commercials for other programs coming up (that's perceived as a cost the station has to help it sell commercials to someone else, and argueably many viewers are thinking from the assumption that a broadcasting corporation makes no money airing its own program ads, which is almost but not quite invariably true).
      It also seems fair to me not to include "Public Service" announcements, and possibly even those commercials that fall between two blocks of programming, but you might want to refigure for all that and get a ratio more like 13 minutes of ads, 47 minutes of show.
      Remember too the viewer often skips some commercials as well. Very few (if any) people think of it in terms of, "I took a bathroom break and made a sandwich, lets see, I guess I have to miss the last 9 minutes of this show, or watch a few extra commercials."
      Sorry, but in the interests of keeping it simple, I didn't bother to specify nearly all the conditions that might shove the actual price estimates a bit one way or the other.
      I think it's interesting that we could start from a lot of obviously false assumptions that would drive the estimates way up and still not see any matches between these price estimates and actual prices, costs or values. For example, we could make an assumption that people are equally likely to change channels during ads or programs, or one that assumes most advertisers are marketing a product that most viewers of a particular program can afford (Like if we assume that 90% of the watchers of Friends can afford an SUV, since some are advertised there), and then do this analysis for that particular program, and the percieved prices still come out very wonky.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    11. Re:Mwahahah by mabinogi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > one that assumes most advertisers are marketing a product that most viewers of a particular program can afford

      Starting to get off topic but anyway -

      I don't think that in a lot of cases they are marketing towards people that can afford the item. At least in the case of things like cars or other non trivial or mundane stuff. If someone was in the market for a new car, and could afford one - they'd buy one. They wouldn't see an ad and suddenly decide to. So what the ads are doing, is trying to put the desire for the product in you - regardless of whether or not you can afford it now. Because one day, you might be able to. And you're far more likely to buy a product after having lusted after it for years, seeing the ads wishing that you could afford one, and now finaly being able to, than if you could already afford it, and you saw the ad for the first time.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    12. Re:Mwahahah by phliar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This, coming from the "teh softwarez must be free-as-in-um-actually-i'm-just-cheap" crowd (which unfortunately makes up the majority of the people who use open source) is absolutely hilarious.
      And you know that "the majority of the people who use open source" are cheap bastards, how?

      My experience has been that people who use Unix tend to be technically oriented adults who are more aware of ethics, copyrights and patents than the general population. It is self-evident that the Microsoft-using population is where the demand for "cracked" Photoshop and Windows XP registration keys etc. comes from -- those programs are just not available/applicable on Unix.

      --
      Unlimited growth == Cancer.
    13. Re:Mwahahah by FreeForm+Response · · Score: 1

      (Thank you, RMS, for that genious naming scheme.)

      It's not RMS's fault that the English language fails to distinguish between libre and gratis as meanings of the word "free."

    14. Re:Mwahahah by Osty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not RMS's fault that the English language fails to distinguish between libre and gratis as meanings of the word "free."

      No, it's RMS's fault for mindlessly insisting that "Free" != "free" despite the shortcomings of the English language. Instead of picking a suitable adjective, or even using libre (which most English speakers will understand anyway, and not confuse with the gratis meaning of "free"), he insists on using the ambiguous term "Free", explaining that the capital 'F' makes all the difference (as if you can hear a capital letter).

    15. Re:Mwahahah by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's spelled "genius", genious. :)

    16. Re:Mwahahah by makomk · · Score: 1

      Actually, as I understand it they gave IE away free to Windows users only (i.e. only people who had already paid for Windows were alloed to use if). I'm not entirely sure about this, though; check the license.

    17. Re:Mwahahah by hopeless+case · · Score: 1
      You wrote:
      Heh. This, coming from the "teh softwarez must be free-as-in-um-actually-i'm-just-cheap" crowd (which unfortunately makes up the majority of the people who use open source) is absolutely hilarious.


      By calling OSS users cheap, I take it you mean they are less willing to spend money on software than some other crowd.

      First of all, why is that a bad thing?

      Secondly, compared to what other crowd?

      I might point out in response that OSS users are more willing to spend their time learning how to use software than windows users are and that for most of us, our time is quite valuable. It is often said that windows is easy to learn but hard to use while Unix like operating systems are hard to learn but easy to use.

      OSS users, then, are more willing to sit down and spend up-front time learning how something works to make better use of the bulk of the time they will spend using a program into the future.

      By contrast, windows users want Microsoft to figure out for them what complex tasks they should be doing and put a button somewhere that they can push to make it happen.

      Now who's cheap?
    18. Re:Mwahahah by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1

      That's a good point about TV being free. There's a friend of mine who doesn't have a TV, but likes the new Enterprise show. He downloads them from newsgroups to watch them. I don't think there's a problem with that because if he had a TV and VCR, he would have just been recording it instead. The movie thing, however, you usually have to pay to see. (unless it gets shown on TV, but it is usually edited down to fit the TV time)

      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
    19. Re:Mwahahah by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like I said, its an obviously false assumption that most viewers of a TV show can afford a particular product. The point was, if you treat it as true just for the sake of arguement, then the "average" consumer has a much higher income, and so the value of their time would be a lot more. (Say they earn 30$ an hour on average, their time is worth 50 cents/minute, so watching eight minutes of commercials to get a program works out to them thinking the program was worth about 4$, and by that rule, 8$ for a two hour movie ticket or 16 dollars for a CD they will listen to twice should be about right, and 16 dollars for a DVD they, and their spouse and two kids will watch three times becomes a real bargain.).
      I didn't mention whether anyone in the RIAA or MPAA is reasoning from this false assumption, but there is a quote I've seen from Jack Valetti, that reads (very approximately, from memory ). "Those little guys, they only make 100,000$ a year. That's not much to live on.", so it sounds like some industry people might be.

      The real reason the assumption is false is, when consumers estimate prices and values, they simply don't think of it like "I can't afford to buy one of those, so I'm freeloading on the system by watching the program this commercial pays for", so they think their income should be irrelevant to the company. Rather they think more in terms of "The company that advertised got its fair reward, whether it came from me or some other viewer" or "The company chose to advertise here - no one was pointing a gun at their head to make them do it. No one is pointing a gun at my head to make me watch." Then they decide that their income may be irrelevant to the advertiser, but it is still very relevant to themselves. Consumers don't haver much respect for an industry that doesn't want to admit that either of those last two quotes are valid, and less if some industry flack starts claiming the first quotes are true instead. If someone tells you that you are stealing just by getting up during the commercials and going to the bathroom, why should you believe them when they say you are stealing by downloading software or MP3s?
      The original point about free software stems from the same clash of viewpoints. The downloaders don't view it as free, because they paid something to an ISP to get on the net, and they are paying in time and effort to find content, sit there twiddleing their thumbs while it downloads, and to burn it to a blank CD they also paid for. Often they have bought video capture cards, memory, or faster systems to get access to broadband. What did anyone expect them to do with a cable modem except download more and faster to get their extra 30$ a month use out of it? That often looks like about the same value as they pay for other entertainment, and the fact that none of it goes to the content producer is "not their fault".

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    20. Re:Mwahahah by Alsee · · Score: 1

      My original post was just a quicky joke on the estimate of 8 minutes commercials and 52 minutes of show. Your figures are still off. I just did a google search: tv commercials "minutes per hour". Looking at the top ten results and excluding two UK results and one Jordanian result, the 7 US results paint a consistant picture of 15 minutes per hour of actual commercials (plus network promotions and public service announcements on top of that) during primetime. The quantity of actual programming drops to 39 minutes minutes per hour during daytime.

      You can do all sorts of gymnastics attempting to work out a price for programming from the viewers point of view, but it is vastly easier to work out the pricing from the advertizers point of view. I used convient figures for the show ER, but the ad value per viewer should be fairly constant across shows. It turns out advertizers pay about 39 cents per viewer per episode, or about 0.9 cents per viewer per minute of actual program.

      So if we somehow eliminated commercials in favor of direct payments then ad free TV would cost about 0.9 cents per minute of programming and fully fund TV at current levels.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    21. Re:Mwahahah by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      I have cable TV, and it often angers me that not only do I have to pay for the service, I still have to sit through commercials anyway.

      (back in the day, when cable TV was in its infancy, there were no commercials on the tube)

      So, assuming advertising revenue from commercials on TV is consistent over the years - cable TV must be raking in the bucks - and I have no better experience than I had in the 1970s during any given time slice (i.e. number of minutes of programming versus minutes of commercials).

      I will admit I have more choices of channels; however, I don't think that capability alone is worth $50+ a month.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    22. Re:Mwahahah by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      Unix != Linux. Interesting that you used "Unix" instead of Linux there. Unix isn't even technically open source, or free.

      How do I know that the majority of "normal" open source users are cheap? RedHat either wouldn't exist, or it would be a fortune 100 corporation. It wouldn't exist because no one would pay for their products or services if all open source users were "cheap". And it would be very wealthy if only a fraction of the people who download ISOs would instead buy them for a few bucks. RedHat doesn't care that "your time is valuable" after you essentially denied them the profit, small as it might be. It's nice that you have a choice, and I'm not attacking that. But that choice is what proves my point. If it's free, why pay for it? Even if I actually perceive any value in the product, eh?

      Mandrake wouldn't need to resort to handouts to survive, and would have gone into bankruptcy to begin with.

      SuSE wouldn't have sold out to Novell; they wouldn't have had any incentive to do that. Neither would Ximian.

      Open source would be a brisk business indeed. It isn't. At least not yet. The number of people who actually make a living off it is still extremely small compared to how many people live off commercial software.

      It's all very simple if you consider software as a business instead of as some wacky religious weapon or a means to provide "freedom and liberty" to humanity.

    23. Re:Mwahahah by ambrosen · · Score: 1

      No, it was free on Solaris as well. And presumably HP-UX. And also bundled with Mac OS until recently.

  12. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the contest was easily clinched by the GNAA homepage

  13. JDS by BigGerman · · Score: 2, Insightful
    kinda interesting to watch the JDS effort.
    You would think that someone like Sun has nerves,resources,etc. to pull a decent Linux desktop.
    The reasons it is not are probably combination of:

    internal apathy of the development group - Linux, desktop, whatever.. Any AC from Sun can comment?

    cluelessness of the upper management - there is no marketing plan, they just grasping the straws

    wrong marketing (different from cluelessness). Wtf it is called "Java"? To me, JDS would mean a Swing-based desktop shell on top of very thin Linux distro. Now, that would be innovation.

    Overall, the JDS just confirms the point that you do not have to be a multi-billion-dollar co to produce major product and when you ARE a m-b-d co, your product may still suck. The innovation is the field owned by talented individuals and hungry startups.

    1. Re:JDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or more likely an incompetant reviewer. I have had JDS2 running on several machines for over a week now and have not experienced a single one of the problems this reviewer mentioned.

    2. Re:JDS by BigGerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is Eugenia that we all know and love ;-)

    3. Re:JDS by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's another review if you're interested.

    4. Re:JDS by neomac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      According to Sun, they're capitalizing on the Java® brand recognition...

      ...which is dumb. We, the folks who know what things like "Linux," "desktop," and "Java" mean from a technical point of view, would likely be confused. I know I was before I read into it. My first reaction was, "Why the hell are they building a Linux desktop distro in Java?" (For the record, my second thought was, "How the hell are they building a Linux distro in Java!!?!")

      This is a good example of what happens when Marketing wins. Sun would have been branding enough for us and IMHO, a better sell to the execs..

    5. Re:JDS by cbowland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have installed JDS on at least 5 machines at work, mostly low end 2 year old pc's, but also 1 v60x (dual booting suse). JDS seems pretty on target for Sun's stated market, i.e. limited functionality/requirements people. Call centers, hospitals, etc.... Basically, people who need word processing, spreadsheets, email, and and a browser. Sun is not targeting Slashdot readers for JDS users, although a some number us will probably end up administrating them. Sun is not trying to create a sexy, leading distribution, but instead is trying to replace (in their eyes) buggy, insecure, virus ridden, expensive windows machines. Of course, all slashdot readers know this, but still insist on judging the distribution on whether it meets their personal needs, including any wingnut hardware combination they may have. Of course its not a perfect distribution, but that's not Sun's pitch. They are going in to companies saying "Look, we have a product that is more secure, less expensive, and provides all the fuctionality your people need. Plus, we will support it, including phone support."

      I think the "Java" in JDS is a hint that the linux base is not important to Sun. My guess is that they are trying to get to a Common Desktop Environment ;-) across all their platforms, sparc, x86, and thin client (sun ray). Using the Java name is just a marketing thing now, but it could be more meaningfull (project looking glass, anyone?) in the future.

      --

      Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
      Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.

    6. Re:JDS by cbowland · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Sort of off topic, but JDS is starting to show up in screenshots of linux machines, even when the main focus of the article isn't JDS.

      See Windows Compatibility for the Linux Desktop for an example.

      --

      Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
      Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.

    7. Re:JDS by ValourX · · Score: 1

      I smell an astroturfer.

      Two reputable reviewers found major problems with JDS2, and some AC on Slashdot negates them? Hmmm...

      -Jem

    8. Re:JDS by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Eugenia \Eu*ge"ni*a\ ([-u]*j[=e]"n[i^]*[.a]), n. [NL. Named in
      honor of Prince Eugene of Savoy.] (Bot.)
      A genus of myrtaceous plants, mostly of tropical countries, and including several aromatic trees and shrubs, among which are the trees which produce allspice and cloves of commerce.

      I don't get.

  14. Google stronger than Hulk?!? by xmas2003 · · Score: 1
    Even the Nigritude Ultramarine Hulk entered the contest at the last minute, and despite trying to SMASH Google, he only ended up #518 ... ;-)

    Hulk still thinks Slashdot shoulda thrown their hat in the ring, but they declined, saying it wouldn't be proper ...

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
  15. Re:Lemma? No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, was using "symbol" in place of "cymbal" part of your riotous math-humor, too?

  16. Nonsense Phrase? by craXORjack · · Score: 1, Funny
    the object of which was for contestants to create a site ranked highest by google for a nonsense phrase, "nigritude ultramarine."
    I was picturing a black supersoldier, kinda like my old drill instructor at Fort Benning. That guy was freakin scary. He was six foot five and hard as a rock in both physique and attitude and had those crazy looking eyes like Bernie Mac. Once out on bivouac he actually opened up a bit and told us about his days in Vietnam when he was a seventeen year old private.
    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    1. Re:Nonsense Phrase? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not talking about Lawrence Fishburne, are you? Anybody?

  17. My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "It's a Homeland Security issue," he said. "We've been aware of the security aspects of the tunnels for a long time. We became more conscious of the security needs after 9-11."

    Jesus, does everything have to be a Homeland Security issue and tied to 9-11?

    Whatever happened to harmless breaking and entering? Really, what the hell is the impotent Homeland Security department going to do? Guard the tunnel entrances? Overreact and send the students to Git-mo?

    Terrorism is old and busted, and is nothing but a political tool and soundbite op.

    Those who respond, "tell that to the victims of 9-11", I submit that if all those people were here today they would be pretty fucking pissed at all the unconstitutional bullshit that has been done in their name.

  18. Re:My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by Grrr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...does everything have to be a Homeland Security issue and tied to 9-11?

    Only so long as it works...

    Remember It's for the children! ?

    <grrr>

  19. For the Wiki Sandboxes by LuYu · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why do they not just disable links to outside pages entirely? It is experimental, right? So why have links to other websites at all?

    Links could create a bogus page like:

    You have linked to the URL: http://somesite.wherever.net
    Internal links within the wiki could be preserved.
    --
    All data is speech. All speech is Free.
    1. Re:For the Wiki Sandboxes by arlandbayes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someone learning might want to test ceating outside links. I think the noindex option is better so that sandboxes are invisible to the google bots.

    2. Re:For the Wiki Sandboxes by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think a better option is a meta tag that lets search engines know that there's user contributed content on the page.
      (Or maybe something in robots.txt)

      Google could still index the page, but weigh links on the page lower.

      -- not a .sig

    3. Re:For the Wiki Sandboxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (Or maybe something in robots.txt)

      Google could still index the page, but weigh links on the page lower.
      Just have to say that's a fucking elegant idea.
    4. Re:For the Wiki Sandboxes by CBravo · · Score: 1

      indeed, "wish I had points".

      --
      nosig today
    5. Re:For the Wiki Sandboxes by dos_dude · · Score: 0
      There are at least two reasons why this would be a bad idea:
      • If you shut down the SandBox, spammers will go after your other pages. (I'm not saying that the NU people will do that, but there are plenty of other SandBox spamming morons out there).
      • The SandBox is for users to try stuff out. How can you try stuff on a page that doesn't work like all the other pages?

      Moreover, the point is not that this and that should not be indexed or that this and that could be done differently. The point is that wikis are there for a purpose and that purpose is not that somebody can increase his damned page rank.

  20. More Googlebombing by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Recently my local computer user group's blog was spammed with user registration. The same user registered about 200 times with slightly different user names and all his home pages linked to the same website. The user never needed to post a single comment in our forums, just the registration page alone gave him 200 links to his home page.

    If you wanna read a more detailed account of how this works, read here.

    --
    I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    1. Re:More Googlebombing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The same user registered about 200 times with slightly different user names
      One of the sites I work for does card-not-present credit card transactions (online purchases, as opposed to picking up a bottle of tequila at the local market). The problem we were having was that people kept using us as a method to verify the validity of stolen credit cards. Fucking plentiful, I tell you.

      There were two solutions implemented: First, CAPTCHA. You know those little automatically-generated screwed up images of words that Yahoo makes you type the letters of in a little input field when you sign up? Yeah, those. You get that wrong, the transaction is never processed. (It costs money even to run a card.)

      Second, if you enter three wrong credit cards in a row, your entire subnet gets shitlisted. Permanently. (This is why I'm not telling Slashdot where I work. :-))

      Why don't forum packages do these? I could whip up a script to submit signup requests in about thirty seconds. Writing an OCR program that submits through open proxies? Not worth the time, were I a spammer.
    2. Re:More Googlebombing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing the nerve people have as they can be traced by the web sites they link. Suprised he didn't get bombed himself!

  21. Lemma 8 by king-manic · · Score: 0

    Lemma 8: If there are a unlimited number of prime pairs implies there are a unlimited number of prime pairs.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  22. Wiki Sandboxes exist to TEST! by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 1
    I don't understand what WIKI site owners have against people putting links in sandboxes.

    The sandboxes are there for users to PLAY IN and test Wiki commands. Nobody is harmed with some silly links in there. The next person in wipes them out (usually). Also most sites clean their sand daily.

    --
    3D Photography

  23. Nigritude? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What did you just call me? You racist son of a bitch! I'll fucking kill you and your fucking family.

  24. Re:My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed, as a non-american and certainly someone who's not inside (except for my girlfriend living in the states), I can say most actions taken in your country by government are considered absurd and childish here in Europe. Using the people that were dying at 9/11, .... I agree totally that 99 % of these people would get angry if they see how they're used by the capitalist and political market

  25. Re:Lemma? No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they had to eliminate Lemma 8? Lame, mate! That's one proof I wont laminate.

    OW!

  26. JDS = poorly implemented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    JDS is a nice PREVIEW of what's to come from SUN, but simply modifying an old Suse distro, throwing in Star Office, a clunky configuration GUI and a crappy default theme (I mean c'mon purple?!) is not worth the $50 "special price" I paid for it. I'm calling Sun tomorrow and requesting a refund or one of those nifty new SANs....

    JDS is cool for about 20 minutes once you have it installed...try doing anything beyond writing a paper or Googling for the Paris Hilton tape and you'll be crying for Fedora or Windoze.

  27. Re:My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Whatever happened to harmless breaking and entering?
    You mean like, what it clearly states the students were charged with at the beggining of the article?

    Really, what the hell is the impotent Homeland Security department going to do?
    Nothing, I'd assume, since the article makes no mention of the Homeland Security department, the FBI, the Austin Joint Terrorism Task Force any other government organzation, and that quote was made by the "associate director of utilities and energy management" at the college, not a government official.

    Guard the tunnel entrances?
    Perhaps they're going to do the only thing that they feel they need to do to make secuirty adequate, which is seal up all the tunnel entrances.

  28. Meh...if I were google i'd have... by Phil+John · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...made all searches for nigritude ultramarine return results in a random order, shouldn't be that hard for them to do, would have been side splittingly funny as well, hah...SEO spammers...take that, and heres another one for your pointless competition ;o)

    --
    I am NaN
  29. Not so great an idea. Don't follow Phillip. by twitter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Why do they not just disable links to outside pages entirely? It is experimental, right? So why have links to other websites at all?

    Links could create a bogus page like:

    you have linked to the URL: http://somesite.wherever.net

    That's not very helpful because it would be difficult to test the link that way. The idea is to encourage legitimate users to actually make and edit pages.

    It is unfortunate that Wiki site administrators have to do anything at all. Phillip admits that he does not get it:

    I still don't understand why something like a newsgroup alt.test could possibly be hurt from anything (spam, backlink-postings, whatever) but I guess I still don't get it.

    Phill, baby, it's rude to use other people and expect them to clean up your mess. As many of the posters stated, Wiki administrators did not set up their service for your purposes and you caused them grief. I can't believe you said this after apologizing.

    He also insults Wiki software itself:

    In any case it seems Wiki software is not up to handle these things.

    Bad attitude, Phill. You bragged about how clever you were, how about comming up with a solution instead? Someone might even give you an ipod or something.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  30. So where can we find the old Lemma 8? by sixpaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With the author having withdrawn the twin primes paper in the wake of the discovered flaw, arXiv no longer has the original up so we can see what went wrong. Does anyone have a mirror?

    1. Re:So where can we find the old Lemma 8? by fizbane · · Score: 2, Informative

      Withdrawing from arxiv.org doesn't mean the original version goes away: math/0405509v1

    2. Re:So where can we find the old Lemma 8? by sixpaw · · Score: 1

      Mea culpa, I saw the '0kb source' in the updated version and assumed that meant it was no longer available. Mod parent down for idiocy on my part, please. :-)

  31. Re:My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I submit that if all those people were here today they would be pretty fucking pissed at all the unconstitutional bullshit that has been done in their name.

    Why, because you are pissed now?

    If those people were here today, it'd be 9/10/01. But it isn't, and the world changed when they left us. Radically.

    I will concede that you have a point, but stick to facts. Make your point based on what you see now and can prove. There's plenty there.

    I'm going to walk away now before my outrage hits this keyboard. You just can cast those that died that day to sell your point. That's just fucking wrong.

  32. OT: Your sig by gooberguy · · Score: 1

    I modded that cambell's ramen post up, not realizing it was plagarism. It was an honest mistake, as I didn't notice the replies. So in conclusion, there's nothing wrong with the moderation system, it's just that most moderators (me included) just don't read all the replies to comments that we moderate.

    --


    Karma: Meh (Mostly from meh.)
  33. Re:Lemma? No kidding. by RepeatedEigenvalue · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some poor grad student isn't gonna be very much liked by his board. They usually have grad students bitch out lemmas like this - but I might be wrong. If I'm right though, some poor schlub is being handed a Master's and shown the door. Piled Higher and Deeper indeed.

    --


    friends don't let friends use linearly dependent row vectors.
  34. Re:My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by orthogonal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Indeed, as a non-american and certainly someone who's not inside (except for my girlfriend living in the states)

    Dear Reichsminister Ashcroft,

    As you can see from the above, the terrorists -- or foreigners, hey, no real difference -- are stealing our pure American women now.

    Please arrest this self-admitted anti-American woman-poacher and send him for some non-torture (because it's not illegal even if it breaks a law if the President says it's ok) "mechanical persuasion application" in Guantanamo, so that real Americans like myself can date his girlfriend.

    If you do this, I promise not to do anything with her than you think is immoral, like dancing or criticizing the government, and to make her my submissive wife in accordance with God's desires as explained in the Holy Scriptures.

  35. Re:Lemma? No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Vanderbilt alum, I can safely vouch that the whole math department there is quite a lemon. I realized it wasn't just me when I was learning more math in a few lectures of physics, electrical engineering, and computer science than I did in many semesters of mathematics.

  36. Re:My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's OK. americans consider things that european countries do to be absurd and childish.

  37. Re:Not so great an idea. Don't follow Phillip. by TheLink · · Score: 1

    It's a sandbox. It's there so that people can experiment there instead of messing up the other sections. Did he use up inordinate amounts of bandwidth? Did he use up tons of CPU? I doubt it - they weren't even complaining about that.

    If you say "Please test here", heck why complain if people actually do so?

    Based on the complaints by Wiki owners it's a fact that at either Wiki software is not up to handle these things or Wiki owners aren't.

    If people bring to attention flaws in code (in this case inadvertently too), they're not necessarily expected to fix it. And don't shoot the messenger.

    Some ppl on Slashdot recently tried to convince me that the Wiki was spammer proof and said a research mentioned on IBM's site stated that most vandalized wikis were corrected in a short space of time.

    I gave email spam as an example and said that wikis won't be safe if they were really popular, but they insisted that Wikis were up to it, blah blah blah. Naive, I let them live in their illusory world of sugar and spice, let someone else break the bad news. Now it looks like someone inadvertently woke em up.

    If some guy messing about with _sandboxes_ can annoy so many wiki owners, are they really prepared? I doubt it.

    If some idiot worm writer writes a mass worm that spreads or exchanges messages using wikis they're in for big trouble.

    The Wiki owners/creators are the ones not getting it. Wikis should at least phase in captchas and similar defenses if thresholds are hit.

    --
  38. Re:My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by psykocrime · · Score: 1

    But it isn't, and the world changed when they left us. Radically.

    The world did not change just because 9/11 happened. What happened was horrible, tragic, and saddening.. As a firefighter myself, I was very disturbed by losing so many of my brothers... BUT, what happened still does not justify radically altering our way of life, and saying that "the world changed."

    It's not like we didn't know there were terrorist groups dedicated to attacking our country, before 9/11, ya know...

    --
    // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
  39. Links by Sinful_Shirts · · Score: 0

    I know that links to your site from other sites, high ranking sites in particular, is very important. In fact, many popular sites that I visit have traffic exchange programs. Funny thing is that they often offer to send more traffic than what they receive from you. Seems odd until you realize that they are also in it for the page ranking on google.

  40. Re:My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by SilentChris · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Terrorism is old and busted, and is nothing but a political tool and soundbite op."

    In a political sense, yes. In a practical sense, not on your life. Just like "the war on drugs" was mostly a political tool, there was a REAL underlying problem that existed (and still exists). Just because some polish up phrases and use them as soundbites doesn't mean the root cause isn't important.

    There's some very real people out there that want to do some very real harm to our very real civilians. Are they as numerous as people say? No. Are people be incorrectly persecuted in this country for it? Yes. But taking away the injustices, there's STILL a core group of real people wanting to mass murder US civilians. Ignoring the issue just because it's a political soundbite is almost as dangerous as ignoring the injustices.

  41. Re:My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...cast those that died that day to sell your point. That's just fucking wrong.

    He's got lots of company...

  42. PlayingWith Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nigritude, ouch...

    Playing with fire. Expect the wrath of the NAACP
    anyday now. Remember the guy who actually got
    fired for using the word niggardly?

  43. Re:Not so great an idea. Don't follow Phillip. by May+Kasahara · · Score: 1
    Based on the complaints by Wiki owners it's a fact that at either Wiki software is not up to handle these things or Wiki owners aren't.

    It's the format of wiki that's partially to blame-- most wiki owners want to keep the things open to the public at large. This is assuming that the best way to control the content of a wiki (including the Sandbox) is to regulate its users, and require registration/passwords.

    The Nigritude spam is a nuisance, one that I shouldn't have to deal with. It's not that I'm not up to it, as it doesn't take very long to revert pages to their previous versions and/or edit the source itself (I do this latter bit of business to avoid having the previous pages show up in Google-- not giving 'em the pleasure, in other words). It's that I feel that I shouldn't have to close off huge chunks of the site to users, nor should I have to make my site invisible to Googlebots, just because of a bunch of spammers.

    Much wiki software is revised and modded constantly. The defenses that you hint at may figure more in the future-- but I hope it doesn't do so at the expense of keeping wikis open.

  44. Re:My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'm glad you brought up the 'War on Drugs' - I agree that there are problems with drugs, terrorism, piracy, poverty, illiteracy, and many other things.

    Why is it that every time that a 'War' is declared, we end up fighting the symptoms of the problems and not the root causes?

    We'd probably be somewhat safer from terrorists if we'd stop training them and giving them weapons...

  45. Glad I did this before 911 by quinkin · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Uni of Queensland has a tunnel network underneath it's central buildings aswell. I am told that it was originally designed to be used by the army in emergencies, but I can't find any record of that (although I believe this is a picture of the tunnel construction).

    After a few years mapping what entrances were visible, we found a grate that had been left open, so those of us who dared went for a jaunt.

    They must have had silent alarms aswell (I saw the sensors) so I knew we wouldn't have long. The group split in two and went opposite directions (the central tunnel is a large ring circumnavigating the great court). A couple of security guards came noisily blundering along the tunnel towards my girlfriend and I, but then they heard they other group and took off after them, not noticing us lurking in the shadows of an alcove.

    The other group made it to a service entrance before the guards caught up, and we scurried back out the original grate. All in all a fun day at Uni.

    Note for law enforcement: This is an ENTIRELY FICTIONAL account of something that NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

    Q.

    --
    Insert Signature Here
    1. Re:Glad I did this before 911 by Feztaa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sounds like you might enjoy some recreational urban exploration.

  46. Re:Nigritude? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be such a niggard, you selfish bastard. I hope my Nigerian friend doesn't renege on his promise to pay ME THE SUM OF $5,000,000 (FIVE MILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS). Fo' shizzle mah nizzle. Now pass the vinegar, good man.

  47. Real Security, re: tunnels by morcheeba · · Score: 1

    UTPD officials say the current security system is adequate. "I think we've got a good system in place, and I think the apprehension of six individuals shows how the system works," Stalder said.

    So, they caught the perps. That's fine for simple vandalism, but if they continue to hide behind "homeland security," I would demand that they actualy provide that level of security. Specifically, the system failed in three ways:
    - They don't know if all intrusions resulted in capture. I suspect not; it's the criminals that don't get caught that you need to worry about.
    - There is no proof that these kids didn't do any damage. They could have planted a dozen bombs set to go off in a year, and by that time they will have served their probation and fled the country. The tunnels allow unsupervised access to anyone, just for limitied periods of time.
    - In the era of disposable terrorists, the act has often been commited before their body parts can be arrested.

    Sure, keeping the maps secret could make it more difficult for someone, but won't deter someone who's serious. These kids did it _for_fun_, and the lack of maps didn't deter them. I say release the maps, because this information could be valuable to people who live and work in the area. The poison you might find may have been placed there by the government and not 'terrorists'.

  48. Re:My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's like the Reichstags fire in the Weimar Republic (Germany). Blamed on "them nasty jews" and used as an excuse to round up undesireables and put them into concentration camps. You'll eventually find out that America is not one iota better, and that you have given up just as many rights as the Germans did in 1933. Sure, sure, you are still allowed to vote; but as long as they count the votes what are you going to do about it?

  49. I think I remember that tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Underground tunnel systems connect campus buildings and carry fiber optics and utility cables, as well as steam and chilled water for heating and air conditioning... the tunnels are simply utility networks...
    went back down a corridor and found a gate. Sitting next to the gate was a crowbar...

    Sounds an awful lot like Half-Life to me.

  50. Re:Randomized Search Results by Baricom · · Score: 1

    Not hard at all, but I'm glad they didn't. Doing so would have undermined their credibility as being impartial.

    As I write this, the top link for search engine is AltaVista. Google is #7. That's honesty, and they should be proud of it.

    I really hope they don't become evil after the IPO.

  51. Re:Randomized Search Results by eison · · Score: 1

    Poor Yahoo. Their new "Life Engine" ad campaign loses out to "Fractal Life Engine" for link #1. I love it. :)

    --
    is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
  52. Yummy! by jellybear · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Nigiri? I love nigiri! ^_^

    I wapanese boy!... desu!

  53. Re:Randomized Search Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I really hope they don't become evil after the IPO.
    Geeks are not evil. Management is.

    Problem is that most geeks don't know how to run a business.
  54. Well lookie there. by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Wiki admins are irritated that a widespread net meme is showing up in their sandboxes?

    Heh.

    All your nigritude are ultramarine to us

  55. Re:My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by jcuervo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Terrorism is old and busted, and is nothing but a political tool and soundbite op.

    Those who respond, "tell that to the victims of 9-11", I submit that if all those people were here today they would be pretty fucking pissed at all the unconstitutional bullshit that has been done in their name.
    Agreed. If I died in any manner, and someone used my death to justify fucking up my country, I'd be pretty god damned pissed. (Well, moreso.) What are we doing about it?
    --
    Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
  56. Re:My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree with you, teamhasnoi. A couple nights ago I watched Ashcroft squirm while Congress grilled him (replayed from that morning on CSpan). Boy that was high entertainment. (He almost got jail time for "Contempt of Congress. ;) But what really caught my attention when he protested that some Patriot Act provision (something to do with police hijinks sans subpoena) was just an extension to terrorism of what they already could do with health insurance fraud. Health insurance fraud!

    Sound like some congress critter owned by the insurance industry already signed away our rights long before 911. I wouldn't be too surprised (now) to find that a lot of the Patriot Act's more odious provisions were simply preexisting cracks widened by it and 911.

    As for the terrorists (the real ones, not the PR ones), apply what's in my sig to our foreign policy, and that little problem should clear itself up. What's sauce for the King of Terror, is sauce for the terrorists. True peace alone (not Bush's fraud) can conquer both. Not peace with terror, but peace with people so their hatred and anger isn't stirred to empower terror. Rumsfeld, in a memo, has already noted that the War on Terror (and especially in Iraq) is stirring up so much hatred and anger that they are making terrorists faster than we can kill them.

    "Lola, kindness is not enough, look for the reason of hatred and anger.
    When you find and understand that, love becomes the strongest power; stronger than courage or wisdom."
    Belabera, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"

  57. Altavista by XanC · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Funny thing is, Altavista ranks itself below Google in a search for search engine.

    Seems like both search algorithms suffer from low self-esteem.

    I guess nobody figures on people searching for search engines anyway...

  58. Re:My turn to use '9-11'! My turn! My turn! by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There's some very real people out there that want to do some very real harm to our very real civilians. Are they as numerous as people say? No. Are people be incorrectly persecuted in this country for it? Yes.


    There seems to be a growing trend of people interviewing themselves as a rhetorical technique. Does John Ashcroft do it every time he's on TV? Yes he does. Is it an effective means of controlling the direction of the interview? You bet. Is it starting to grate on my nerves? Absolutely! Will it get old and go away soon? We can only hope.


    (Yeah, it's off-topic, but when the topic is "Nigritude Ultramarine", so is pretty much everything else)

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  59. Microsoft, OSS, Black by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Informative
    Trust a Winnut to twist this in to some kind of anti-MS / anti-OSS statement. But hey - let's start off by making completely unrelated attacks:


    Heh. This, coming from the "teh softwarez must be free-as-in-um-actually-i'm-just-cheap" crowd (which unfortunately makes up the majority of the people who use open source) is absolutely hilarious.


    Hey - let's ignore the Windows-based warez scene. Windows freeware, shareware, and spyware. Let's not bother ourselves with how gleefull Winnuts get when Microsoft slips them CDs of the latest Enterprise app or OS at a Cert class, tech talk, or conference. After all, liking free stuff is solely the domain of the OSS crowd.

    And since this exists within the OSS crowd, obviously its all about money. Forget all those high-hat morals and ideals. Its all about being cheap. Nevermind professionals who deploy OSS even though they have access to budgets that enable them to pick from any option available.

    Pot, kettle, black.


    In any case, Microsoft has given software away for ages. Suddenly because they gave away IE, the world is on track to become evil purveyors of stolen... things.


    You might want to go back over what you quoted. In the litany of "free" stuff, it includes:


    Why pay for an operating system when I can get it for free? Why pay for software when I can get it for free?


    One could easily take this statement and place blame on OSS for putting the world on track "to become evil purveyors of stolen... things." In fact, that sounds awfully like the arguments put forward by Darl McBride and Ken Brown. Suddenly that quote doesn't quite have the MS-bash tone to it anymore.

    Of course, if you weren't so busy trying to mine the article for propoganda, you might have caught on to a good point. Whether Microsoft started the process or contributed to it... today they have a serious problem. They have to fight more than a product put forward by IBM or Novell or Redhat, et al. They have to battle a perception that the OS itself is as much a commodity as the hardware it runs on. If Microsoft is unable to stop this shift in perception, they will face the same kind of upset IBM faced when its market became a commodity.

    Now THAT is ironic.
    1. Re:Microsoft, OSS, Black by jaelle · · Score: 1

      I do pc field support for OEM's, so I talk to many ordinary computer users in my daily work. 90% are not even aware that there *is* any free software. Most of them don't know that they can have a home page other than MSN or AOL. Many of them have heard of google but don't know what it is for. They have a rough notion that there's piracy out there, but they aren't involved in it and they're terrified that their kids will get roped into it. I can't help thinking that M$ and RIAA has way less of a problem with piracy than they would have you believe..

      --
      You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
    2. Re:Microsoft, OSS, Black by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      Trust a Winnut

      "Winnut"? That's hilarious. "Open sores fanboy" is funny, too. Isn't it?

      let's ignore the Windows-based warez scene. Windows freeware, shareware, and spyware.

      Yes, let's. Because they have nothing to do with this.

      Let's not bother ourselves with how gleefull Winnuts get when Microsoft slips them CDs of the latest Enterprise

      Microsoft doesn't give away "enterprise software".

      And since this exists within the OSS crowd, obviously its all about money. Forget all those high-hat morals and ideals. Its all about being cheap. Nevermind professionals who deploy OSS even though they have access to budgets that enable them to pick from any option available.

      High-hat morals? Bwahahaha, again. And you're free to deploy whatever you want with your big budget. But now you're turning my assertion into a stupid generalization. I have no doubt that there are people who are in it for the cause; however the majority of your "users" are in it for the free ride. Otherwise - wait for it - more people would buy distros, even for a token cost, than simply download ISOs for free. Otherwise all those open source projects that ask for donations via Paypal would actually be getting them. It's as simple as that.

      that sounds awfully like the arguments put forward by Darl McBride and Ken Brown.

      Mad propz to you, sir. Evil Name Dropping never cost anyone any karma.

      Of course, if you weren't so busy trying to mine the article for propoganda, you might have caught on to a good point. Whether Microsoft started the process or contributed to it... today they have a serious problem. They have to fight more than a product put forward by IBM or Novell or Redhat, et al. They have to battle a perception that the OS itself is as much a commodity as the hardware it runs on.

      I wasn't "mining" the article for propaganda. I was quoting the part that I thought was the most ridiculous, that's all. And just in case you missed it (well, obviously you did), Microsoft now has a "serious" problem solely because of companies getting behind open source. Profit. Your own high-falutin' ideals are being replaced by the quest for profit and competition, which is something Microsoft can understand. Before this little development open source had exactly zero chances of becoming mainstream. The perception of software becoming a commodity will depend on whether or not these companies want it that way, not because of what you and a few other slashbots think. And frankly, I don't think Novell or IBM want it that way, but we'll see.

      In any case, Microsoft didn't "hook" people on "free stuff". The internet did. And your generalization is again stupid - Opera would have disappeared a long time ago if everyone expected to get a browser for free. Indeed, if Mozilla is such a fantastic browser, how come Opera still exists?

      Oh, and Mr. High-Hat Morals, if "free software" is all about freedom, how can freedom be commoditized? Please be careful and try not to trip all over your ideology next time you flame someone. It's so unbecoming.

    3. Re:Microsoft, OSS, Black by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1


      "Winnut"? That's hilarious. "Open sores fanboy" is funny, too. Isn't it?

      I suppose mocking is only OK as in "OK-to-mock-others-but-not-me". But yea - I suppose that one is nice. It's a break from the usual "slashbot" or "linux zealot".



      let's ignore the Windows-based warez scene. Windows freeware, shareware, and spyware.

      Yes, let's. Because they have nothing to do with this.

      No. It has everything to do with this. People like free stuff. You'll find it in the proprietary software world too. Warez is a prime, abliet illegal, example.


      Microsoft doesn't give away "enterprise software".

      I have gratis copies of Win2003, MS Office, and some security tools from Microsoft employess handed over at various events. They tell me this is enterprise level software.


      But now you're turning my assertion into a stupid generalization. I have no doubt that there are people who are in it for the cause; however the majority of your "users" are in it for the free ride. Otherwise - wait for it - more people would buy distros, even for a token cost, than simply download ISOs for free. Otherwise all those open source projects that ask for donations via Paypal would actually be getting them. It's as simple as that.

      I'm not turning your assertion in to a stupid generalization; you're making that generalization all on your own. You discount interest in Open Source as a petty financial motive. I agree that it is very likely the motive for a large number of people. After all, take a look at the warez scene you're so quick to discount. Within that structure are a relatively large population of people who want free stuff.

      What about the paypal tip jars? Ask the Shareware community how easy it is to make money from software. Business is tough. Even if you have something worthwhile. Some gain monetary reward - many don't.

      So we've established that free stuff has a wide appeal. Please feel free to show how this appeal is incompatable with the ideals of Open Source software.



      that sounds awfully like the arguments put forward by Darl McBride and Ken Brown.

      Mad propz to you, sir. Evil Name Dropping never cost anyone any karma.

      Way to gloss over the point. I'm not name dropping. I'm pointing out that the very statemen you're painting as critical to Microsoft could be equally critical to Open Source. It could even fall in line with some of Open Sources most loudest current critics.


      Microsoft now has a "serious" problem solely because of companies getting behind open source. Profit. Your own high-falutin' ideals are being replaced by the quest for profit and competition, which is something Microsoft can understand. Before this little development open source had exactly zero chances of becoming mainstream. The perception of software becoming a commodity will depend on whether or not these companies want it that way, not because of what you and a few other slashbots think. And frankly, I don't think Novell or IBM want it that way, but we'll see.

      Actually, I didn't miss this. But I didn't comment on it because it has nothing to do with the quote in question.

      But since you brought it up... what's wrong with profit? Who says the quest for profit and competition is a bad thing? Who says that it has to exclude freedom? Heck - competition has a lot to do with freedom. I'm glad to see business embrace it.

      Incidently - business didn't just come up with Open Source by itself. It adopted it after hundreds if not thousands of people like me and other "slashbots" (so much for that n

    4. Re:Microsoft, OSS, Black by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      No. It has everything to do with this. People like free stuff.

      Yes, well. Duh. And yet that by itself proves that Microsoft is somehow digging its own grave. What a leap of logic.

      I have gratis copies of Win2003, MS Office,

      Head on over to microsoft.com and peruse the full line of enterprise software. Then tell me they gave you a license (non beta or developer copy) of Application Center or Host Integration Server or ISA or BizTalk or SQL Server or SharePoint for free. Then we'll chat.

      So we've established that free stuff has a wide appeal. Please feel free to show how this appeal is incompatable with the ideals of Open Source software

      Heh. So you're basically saying that the primary appeal is the low monetary cost? OK, I can go with that, sure. I don't see how it's incompatible with the "ideals", since each one of you has different ideals and they're changed depending on what you're trying to defend or attack.

      I'm not an expert on the "ideals" (heck, I doubt anyone is - they're like standards in that there are so many to pick from), but I do think that by and large, people who use open source or free (or whatever) software are fundamentally cheap. Not all of them. But most.

      People who run Windows and are used to paying for software or not (and your insistence of using warez as proof that they're cheap is dumb since there are people out there actually pirating Xandros) don't care about ideals, and neither do the people who give them the software.

      FOSS on the other hand seems to think that it's spreading The Message by appealing to people who are fundamentally cheap. I say this is kind of self-defeating, but that's just me.

      If Opera is so great, how come there's an ad-supported version?

      At least Opera can offer an ad-supported version. Can you imagine what would be the reaction of the zealots if Gentoo showed you ads during the boot process? Yet it works for people who *think* they're getting something for free, even though it's not. Everybody wins (or thinks they do).

      Besides, the add-supported version is to get you hooked on the thing. That's how shareware works (or doesn't, depending on who you talk to). It's exactly the same as free software. We hope that this time instead of downloading the ISO you'll buy a CD for $5. I don't quite think that works, because you're using guilt as an appeal factor. People could care less. When you cripple software or use another way to get people to pay up you get better results. This has always been true and it simply jives with human nature.

      But they certainly feed it when it suits them. And that could be a problem for them as time goes on.

      Well, to get back on topic. I thought the article was stupid for making generalizations about people expecting everything free from Microsoft, given that they get the browser and other things for free as well. I thought it was especially stupid coming from someone who is part of the "everything should be free" crowd.

      You can argue all you want, but the fact remains that Microsoft has given away IE (and everything else they give away) for a long time, and yet people continue to buy their software (and everyone else's). This sudden revolution of people realizing that they don't want to pay for an OS or an office suite and going to open source is fundamentally stupid; as all the other theories of what would be Microsoft's downfall and when Linux would rule the desktop. It's 2004 and here's another theory about how people will find FOSS attractive. Wow. Color me impressed.

      In your eagerness to sound clever [...] After all, most of us get water out of the tap... yet there's quite an industry involved in selling it bottled.

      I don't know that I was "trying to sound clever". And yet the facts are the same: Open Source is not exactly the hottest business in the planet, and Microsoft is still selling software like crazy.

      You can't argue that away, no matter how clever you want to sound. And you and your friends sure don't understand how people think. Which doesn't surprise me given that you don't understand how they use computers either.

    5. Re:Microsoft, OSS, Black by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1


      Head on over to microsoft.com and peruse the full line of enterprise software. Then tell me they gave you a license (non beta or developer copy) of Application Center or Host Integration Server or ISA or BizTalk or SQL Server or SharePoint for free. Then we'll chat.

      Fine - if you want to label MS Office or Win2003 as non-enterprise software, who am I to argue? The point is that Microsoft does give away some fairly substantial software from time to time and folks completely devoted to the proprietary software world go giddy over it. The appeal of free stuff is universal.


      I'm not an expert on the "ideals" (heck, I doubt anyone is - they're like standards in that there are so many to pick from), but I do think that by and large, people who use open source or free (or whatever) software are fundamentally cheap. Not all of them. But most.

      And I think you'll find that people, in general, are cheap. It doesn't matter what pool of software license they're pulling from. The only difference is what people are legally required to pay.

      Discounting any of the true Freedoms associated with Open Source as some kind of disguised miserly motivation seems, at the least, disingenuous.


      At least Opera can offer an ad-supported version. Can you imagine what would be the reaction of the zealots if Gentoo showed you ads during the boot process? Yet it works for people who *think* they're getting something for free, even though it's not. Everybody wins (or thinks they do).

      None the less... Opera still feels inclined to offer an adware version of their browser. Why? Selling browser software is, at best, a niche market.


      You can argue all you want, but the fact remains that Microsoft has given away IE (and everything else they give away) for a long time, and yet people continue to buy their software (and everyone else's). This sudden revolution of people realizing that they don't want to pay for an OS or an office suite and going to open source is fundamentally stupid; as all the other theories of what would be Microsoft's downfall and when Linux would rule the desktop. It's 2004 and here's another theory about how people will find FOSS attractive. Wow. Color me impressed.

      When you look at "revolutions" in IT, they're not really over-night en-masse revelations. There's actually a rather lenghty process of early adopters and increasing momentum. Even smart, paranoid tech companies keeping an eye on the market will miss this until it's too late.

      Anybody who really, truely believes that Linux is just going to appear on the desktop or Microsoft's entire market for OS' and productivity tools are going to disolve are delusional. Nothing works that way. But once the momentum has picked up enough, it's going to almost appear like that happened to those sitting on the wrong side of an industry shift.

      FOSS is picking up momentum. If you're trying to deny that momentum is there, you're deluding yourself. However... even as much as a Linux fanboy as I can be... I would be fooling myself if I claimed that I knew that momentum will continue enough to complete that shift in the industry. Especially one as fundimental as making the OS a commodity.

      But as that momentum picks up, it will present a problem to Microsoft. I argue that there is enough momentum today for Microsoft to have taken notice and already begin reacting. But before this is taken the wrong way - I don't put the problem solely at Microsoft's feet. You're right - giving away IE didn't spawn this (potential) monster.


      I don't know that I was "trying to sound clever". And yet the facts are the same: Open Source is not exactly the hottest business in the planet, and Microsoft is still selling software like crazy.

  60. Re:Lemma? No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I'm sorry to hear that, so I hope you'll lemme lament your stance on the issue.

  61. Re:Lemma? No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are full of shit.

  62. Nitpicking Ultraspecific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It should be noted that the proper name for CWRU is Case Western Reserve, or more colloquially, Case... *not* Case Western. This is because CWRU was formed from the merger of two separate schools, Case Institute of Technology and Western Reserve College; and WRC is named for the colonial name for northeast Ohio, the Western Reserve of Connecticut.

  63. Sacred Cow and Internet Applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I think building Internet services into applications is one area where the open source community can lead now...


    Huh? You mean applications like Telnet, ssh, FTP, web browsers? All have roots in the Unix world. What "Internet services" built into Windows were the innovators?

    Unix, in general, has always lead in Internet services!

  64. Misinterpreted Results re SEO by rramir16 · · Score: 1

    Results like these always lead to one conclusion: google had serious flaws. However, is this conclusion accurate? I think that it is not. Google properly reported that the most common use of the phrase involving "nigritude" was in fact due to this contest. In effect, they redefined the word nigritude, rather than misreporting it. It would had been an error had the results not turned up as they did, since this contest was pretty much the only use of that search phrase throughout the entire web. An example would be that the search phrase "slashdot" properly points right here. THis site has nothing to do with either slash or dots, but is what web people think of when they think "slashdot"

  65. Domain Squatters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how long will it take for a domain squatter to snatch up that domain?

  66. WHOA!!!! by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1

    So, under the prevailing Deep Pockets Theory (``When suing, go after anyone with serious money, regardless of relevant relationship to the case''), the RIAA should include Microsoft in every one of these lawsuits.

    That's one time I'd cheer for MS to win.

  67. Re:Lemma? No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just KNOW you ment to say *cymbal crash*

  68. Re:Not so great an idea. Don't follow Phillip. by TheLink · · Score: 1

    The wiki stuff is nice and all that. But what if people subtly alter stuff (e.g. history). Would people notice errors? It's just like the patent office problem - they let through almost any crap nowadays that looks half intelligent to the examiner.

    Would really attacking wikis be worth it? (This nigritude stuff is nothing). Maybe not at the moment so at least some wikis are safe. And maybe just captchas and similar stuff will keep most (not all) wikis safe from automated spamming whilst not requiring the use of user accounts.

    But if a wiki becomes really popular it may be worth it for a spammer/worm to keep altering at least the main entry pages (this can be done despite captchas). So such wikis may require accounts for more critical sections.

    AFAIK the nigritude spam just touched sandboxes. So just tell google not to index your sandbox. In a way wiki owners are spamming google's index by letting it index their sandboxes and the nonsense that they let people write in it.

    --