Slashdot Mirror
Google Blocks co.cc From Search Results
tekgoblin writes "Google has taken the attack on malware into its own hands today as it blocks the entire co.cc subdomain. The block removed about 11 million results from the Google search index which should dramatically clean up much malware in search results."
That wouldn't be cool.
Zoom Player Lead Dev.
Nope. I'm pretty sure you just posted it. Maybe you posted a dupe comment, but it's not the same exact one, just identical.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
Problem is, it only allows you to blacklist 50 domains (or did, last time I used the feature).
I suppose suggesting google should block them is a bit harsh, but it'd be nice if they had a way to more appropriately rank them. The quality and accuracy and meaningfulness of the content deserves placement a few pages down; the only reason they have the top three or five results most of the time, is due to a more broad manipulation unrelated to the actual individual content. If the content was valuable (like wikipedia results), I'd have no problem with it rising to the top - even with a nudge by google as a judgement call.
.co.cc is not an officially recognized second level domain. It is just sub-domains given out by a Korean company that owns the domain http://co.cc/ So, Google is actually removing just one domain with 11 million sub-domains. (source http://digitizor.com/2011/07/06/google-removes-cc-domains/ )
Expert Sex Change is a pile of shit and ehow is a waste of space
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Actually, it looks like they've raised the limit to 500 domains. That's a lot more reasonable. There's more than 50 that I need to block for a better experience, but I probably couldn't come up with near 500 regular offenders.
> some people say that it's better to allow a hundred guilty people go free than imprison one innocent person. I'm not sure if I agree with that
If one day you are the one innocent stuck with 100 guilty people maybe you will change your mind. If you want a second opinion on this, ask the mother of Freddy Krueger.
lucm, indeed.
> Yahoo Answers isn't a content farm. It's a legit place where users post general questions and other users answer
I love Yahoo Answer, especially when people take the time to reply "I don't know".
lucm, indeed.
http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2011/06/protecting-users-from-malware-hosted-on.html
The ORIGINAL FUCKING STORY IS ON THE REGISTER
For fuck's sake, stop this linking to every scumbag linkspamming plaigiarising blogger who submits his crappy blog to scam some ad hits.
Why is 100 the number? Why not 1000? or 10? How many guilty people must we accept go free to make sure that one innocent doesn't get punished?
If it is infinitely worse to punish one innocent, we should just close down the police and courts, as we can never be 100%, totally, without doubt certain of anybodies guilt.
If it is zero, we should start putting everybody in prison, to make sure we get everybody who is guilty.
I think we can agree that none of these scenarios are good societies, so we need to aim for something in between. But what level of doubt should be enough for not punishing a person? Until that question is answered, the phrase about a hundred guilty going free is just words that sounds nice.
Interesting that the article says that co.cc is being managed by a company in Korea. When CC is The Cocos Islands and Keeling Islands, a territory of Australia. (Christmas Island, CX is also an Australian territory.)
co.ck would be The Cook Islands, which is a semi-autonomous part of New Zealand.
[...] the number isn't important. It's just an illustration of the legal doctrine of presumed innocence.
But the number IS important, it defines what level of presumption of innocence our judicial system has. This is a fundamental question, and yet is isn't defined anywhere. I would assume that different people found different levels of doubt reasonable, so not defining it just leads to arbitrary justice, depending on what the particular jury or judge finds reasonable.