"The Court of Appeal still insisted that the CSS system itself was originally designed to prevent copying and therefore any tampering with the encryption whatsoever - so decrypting the DVD for the purpose of watching is illegal."
No. SEOs are pure evil, and just make the problem worse by actively trying to prevent Google from even trying to be a neutral and impartial observer of link quality.
What you should do is hire a competent web site builder. They should take care of making your site look good, both with regards to technical validity and usability. Only when your site actually is good, then Google has a fair chance of judging if it deserves a high ranking. As soon as you try to make your site look more important than it is, a search engine has no choice by regarding it as noise and degrade its ranking.
Google, and any other search engine, stand and fall with its users' trust in its ability to judge page quality fairly. If the users get a feeling that the search results may be influenced by something else than their actual relevance to their search query, then they will go to another search engine.
Except that most redirect services, including the one in the original post, uses HTTP status 302, which indicates a temporary redirect which should not be cached.
$ telnet dwarfurl.com 80 Trying 216.14.80.118... Connected to dwarfurl.com. Escape character is '^]'. GET/ae9b3 HTTP/1.0
Yes. And automation. Automation, automation, automation. In every software project, there should be automated testing. Yes, that includes testing that the product works after a reboot. And the whole product should be tested, including installer, upgrade scenarios and whatnot. When a new build comes out of the build system, it should automatically be picked up by a test system that runs it through eight levels of hell, and only when that test gives a green light, the build can go out. We do basic smoketesting every hour, and every night we put our products through full system testing (for 30-something different Linux platforms!), and we don't release unless we have a nice green colour on our test log web pages.
And you don't have to choose at all, since nothing stops you from signing up for eMusic the normal way and using that music on your iPhone. What you get from eMusic is just plain-old MP3s that can be played anywhere. Best of two worlds.
One reason many people (including me) get external harddrives is that they frequently need to move them between different locations. I have a portable 160 GB that's always in my backpack, that contains VMware virtual machines and file system images that I need to be able to access from several computer at several different physical locations (and indeed different computer networks, sometimes without an Internet connection).
In summary: there is a real need for sharing a drive between different systems.
NTFS is exactly what I use for my portable hard drive that I share between Windows, Linux and Mac computers. The main reason for choosing NTFS was that I need to store big virtual machine disks where files are sometimes many gigabytes in size. In Mac OS X and Linux, I use NTFS-3G to access the drive. It works, but it's very slow when transferring many and/or large files, so I would love to have a better alternative.
May's songs had a huge influence on me during my teenage years. Well, most Queen songs had, but many of Mays songs stands in particular; he wrote the first songs on the Queen II album which I spent countless hours listening to. Teo Torriate (Let Us Cling Together) from A Day At The Races was one of my favourite songs ever for many years. I went to see him live in Stockholm during the 1998 Another World solo tour, which was a really great experience.
With Windows, there's a support number you can call, or you can take it to a local computer store, or ask for help among the massive number of Windows users - in short, you're not stuck with snobs on forums who think you should be able to hand-edit configuration files without being able to see anything on the screen.
I used to love Wikipedia, but that incident made me realise it's nothing more than a starting point to get a very basic idea of a subject and then move on.
That sounds exactly like what I think any encyclopedia is for.
Congratulations! You managed to: 1) completely miss my point and 2) jump into conclusions about our target market that you obviously have no clue about (I specifically left out details about that because that was beside the point).
1: my point was not that we must test every possible distro out there that a customer may or may not use. My point is that we want to test on a diverse set of platforms because it automatically increases test coverage and, consequently, the quality of the end-product. Very many, if not most, bugs in any given product that ties into the underlying operating system, will only manifest themselves in certain system- and/or hardware configurations. Each distribution have their own differences in configuration, giving exposure to more configuration-specific bugs if you test on those distros. Add to that different architectures and behaviour differences that appears when combining different libraries and components.
2: I won't go into details because, as I said, it's beside the point - but let's just say you missed out on some of the most popular Linux distributions among our customers (hint: check out the asian Linux markets).
Still, my point was that a 4% market share _now_ is likely to represent a larger figure _in actual hosts_ than some 20% (or whatever it might have been) market share in the early 90's. The total amount of hosts has grown tremendously.
I work with QA in a team that produces traditional closed-source software for Linux. The thing is, thanks do the fact that there are so many Linux distribution, our software quality automatically increases. This is how it works: we, of course, need to test on as many distros as possible. Naturally, we focus on the distros that customers use. But basically, we just shove in as many different Linux variants as possible into our testing systems (given our hardware constraints), and each night test the latest nightly builds on some 30+ different distribution/version/architecture combinations. This might seem like a lot of work, but it turns out we can find the most obscure bugs thanks to testing on such a diverse set of platforms. And in the end, this gives us an advantage in that it forces us to produce code that works well on pretty much all different kinds of Linux configurations out there. Usually, since the more specialised distributions tend to be based on one of the mainstream ones, we automatically cover most of them too. If a big customer starts using a customized Linux distribution, we're likely to add that to our automatic testing system, too, but usually the big names are enough.
So while it may seem a hassle to test on a vast number of platform, it really makes you think about code robustness and quality in a different way. Of course, there is a long way to go in certain areas, not to mention universal third-party package management and desktop integration, but we're slowly getting there, too.
Why not? OSX has never had nearly the same install-base that classic Mac OS did during it's heyday, and of all the predominant methods that malware spreads simply can't work on OSX like they do on Windows because there are not enough potential hosts.
Do you have any figures to back that up? I would think that, even if the relative Mac market share is smaller, the whole market is much bigger nowadays, so the absolute number of OS X hosts is probably higher.
Funny that, because my mobile phones has consistently increased their sound quality, battery life and durability as I've upgraded them. Still, they have also gotten neat new features such as camera, MP3 player, Bluetooth, et cetera. I have switched to a new phone model about every two years or so (because I've wanted new features, or because I've lost them somewhere, not because they have stopped working), since 1997.
I'd say that most people like you (there are always a bunch of them on every mobile phone story on Slashdot, and somehow one of them always gets modded +5 even though he says nothing that everyone hasn't already hard a gazillion times already) haven't actually taken the time to compare the new phones' basic "phone features" to the old models. Some people have just determined that the new flashy phones has to suck because, well, they have all these cool features, so they must've gotten worse somehow, right?
Also, I would bet that every major GSM phone manufacturer has a couple of "plain phone" models if you just don't want any modern features in your phone. No-one is forcing you to buy these new-fangled feature-packed phones.
We used git for a larger project (the source tree was huge, and git was the only free tool we found that could manage a project that big with reasonable performance) at work. I don't think anyone in the project group took longer than a few hours to learn the basics, including lowly testers like me.:-)
I don't agree - in practically every European country (hey, probably almost every country except the U.S.) the local TLD's are in very extensive use, and people are used to getting to a company's _local_ website by going to, say, www.company.fi instead of www.company.com (which would take you to a global, english-language site instead). This goes for both multinational corporations and local companies. Apart from that, a number of very small island countries re-sell their TLDs because they have funny meanings in other parts of the world, but that's really a minority of all the two-letter TLD's currently in use.
They also don't hash passwords anymore in your registry from AIM6 onward. They encrypt them, but that's a lot easier to get around than hashing.
Well, this is usually a trade-off between being able to have a secure authentication procedure (using challenge-response authentication) or not having to store the password in cleartext at the client. If you hash the password, you can't do a challenge-response authentication on that password (since it would need the cleartext password to be available at log-in time - you could do it using the hash, but then it'd be just as sensitive information as the password itself).
Slashdot Mirror
I think I can help collecting some CD's to send over, if only I get an address and such. But I'm guessing Canonical can help, too.
We might just do that. After all, we are already announcing broken builds on a LED sign and with sound effects. :-)
TL;DR
;-)
No. SEOs are pure evil, and just make the problem worse by actively trying to prevent Google from even trying to be a neutral and impartial observer of link quality.
What you should do is hire a competent web site builder. They should take care of making your site look good, both with regards to technical validity and usability. Only when your site actually is good, then Google has a fair chance of judging if it deserves a high ranking. As soon as you try to make your site look more important than it is, a search engine has no choice by regarding it as noise and degrade its ranking.
Google, and any other search engine, stand and fall with its users' trust in its ability to judge page quality fairly. If the users get a feeling that the search results may be influenced by something else than their actual relevance to their search query, then they will go to another search engine.
35 miles per gallon = 0.067 liters per kilometer
Any QA with the least bit of pride should include reboot scenarios in their (automated, of course) testing. Anything else is plain irresponsible.
Yes. And automation. Automation, automation, automation. In every software project, there should be automated testing. Yes, that includes testing that the product works after a reboot. And the whole product should be tested, including installer, upgrade scenarios and whatnot. When a new build comes out of the build system, it should automatically be picked up by a test system that runs it through eight levels of hell, and only when that test gives a green light, the build can go out. We do basic smoketesting every hour, and every night we put our products through full system testing (for 30-something different Linux platforms!), and we don't release unless we have a nice green colour on our test log web pages.
There are plenty of algorithms for compensating for varying lightning conditions. See HDR program or autostich-like software for examples.
In german, but anyway some pretty pictures even if you don't understand the language. :-)
http://www.spelco.eu/edit/content/file/DV141174_en/060817-zdf-heute-gryphon.mpg/Get.aspx
http://www.spelco.eu/edit/content/file/DV141185_en/060827-spiegel-gryphon.mpg/Get.aspx
http://www.spelco.eu/edit/content/file/DV141196_en/060915-galileo-gryphon.mpg/Get.aspx
http://www.spelco.eu/edit/content/file/DV141207_en/Welt_der_Wunder.mpg/Get.aspx
And you don't have to choose at all, since nothing stops you from signing up for eMusic the normal way and using that music on your iPhone. What you get from eMusic is just plain-old MP3s that can be played anywhere. Best of two worlds.
One reason many people (including me) get external harddrives is that they frequently need to move them between different locations. I have a portable 160 GB that's always in my backpack, that contains VMware virtual machines and file system images that I need to be able to access from several computer at several different physical locations (and indeed different computer networks, sometimes without an Internet connection).
In summary: there is a real need for sharing a drive between different systems.
NTFS is exactly what I use for my portable hard drive that I share between Windows, Linux and Mac computers. The main reason for choosing NTFS was that I need to store big virtual machine disks where files are sometimes many gigabytes in size. In Mac OS X and Linux, I use NTFS-3G to access the drive. It works, but it's very slow when transferring many and/or large files, so I would love to have a better alternative.
May's songs had a huge influence on me during my teenage years. Well, most Queen songs had, but many of Mays songs stands in particular; he wrote the first songs on the Queen II album which I spent countless hours listening to. Teo Torriate (Let Us Cling Together) from A Day At The Races was one of my favourite songs ever for many years. I went to see him live in Stockholm during the 1998 Another World solo tour, which was a really great experience.
There are many places you can turn to if you want commercial support for Ubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.com/support/commercial/marketpl
That sounds exactly like what I think any encyclopedia is for.
Congratulations! You managed to: 1) completely miss my point and 2) jump into conclusions about our target market that you obviously have no clue about (I specifically left out details about that because that was beside the point).
1: my point was not that we must test every possible distro out there that a customer may or may not use. My point is that we want to test on a diverse set of platforms because it automatically increases test coverage and, consequently, the quality of the end-product. Very many, if not most, bugs in any given product that ties into the underlying operating system, will only manifest themselves in certain system- and/or hardware configurations. Each distribution have their own differences in configuration, giving exposure to more configuration-specific bugs if you test on those distros. Add to that different architectures and behaviour differences that appears when combining different libraries and components.
2: I won't go into details because, as I said, it's beside the point - but let's just say you missed out on some of the most popular Linux distributions among our customers (hint: check out the asian Linux markets).
Still, my point was that a 4% market share _now_ is likely to represent a larger figure _in actual hosts_ than some 20% (or whatever it might have been) market share in the early 90's. The total amount of hosts has grown tremendously.
I work with QA in a team that produces traditional closed-source software for Linux. The thing is, thanks do the fact that there are so many Linux distribution, our software quality automatically increases. This is how it works: we, of course, need to test on as many distros as possible. Naturally, we focus on the distros that customers use. But basically, we just shove in as many different Linux variants as possible into our testing systems (given our hardware constraints), and each night test the latest nightly builds on some 30+ different distribution/version/architecture combinations. This might seem like a lot of work, but it turns out we can find the most obscure bugs thanks to testing on such a diverse set of platforms. And in the end, this gives us an advantage in that it forces us to produce code that works well on pretty much all different kinds of Linux configurations out there. Usually, since the more specialised distributions tend to be based on one of the mainstream ones, we automatically cover most of them too. If a big customer starts using a customized Linux distribution, we're likely to add that to our automatic testing system, too, but usually the big names are enough.
So while it may seem a hassle to test on a vast number of platform, it really makes you think about code robustness and quality in a different way. Of course, there is a long way to go in certain areas, not to mention universal third-party package management and desktop integration, but we're slowly getting there, too.
Do you have any figures to back that up? I would think that, even if the relative Mac market share is smaller, the whole market is much bigger nowadays, so the absolute number of OS X hosts is probably higher.
Funny that, because my mobile phones has consistently increased their sound quality, battery life and durability as I've upgraded them. Still, they have also gotten neat new features such as camera, MP3 player, Bluetooth, et cetera. I have switched to a new phone model about every two years or so (because I've wanted new features, or because I've lost them somewhere, not because they have stopped working), since 1997.
I'd say that most people like you (there are always a bunch of them on every mobile phone story on Slashdot, and somehow one of them always gets modded +5 even though he says nothing that everyone hasn't already hard a gazillion times already) haven't actually taken the time to compare the new phones' basic "phone features" to the old models. Some people have just determined that the new flashy phones has to suck because, well, they have all these cool features, so they must've gotten worse somehow, right?
Also, I would bet that every major GSM phone manufacturer has a couple of "plain phone" models if you just don't want any modern features in your phone. No-one is forcing you to buy these new-fangled feature-packed phones.
We used git for a larger project (the source tree was huge, and git was the only free tool we found that could manage a project that big with reasonable performance) at work. I don't think anyone in the project group took longer than a few hours to learn the basics, including lowly testers like me. :-)
I don't agree - in practically every European country (hey, probably almost every country except the U.S.) the local TLD's are in very extensive use, and people are used to getting to a company's _local_ website by going to, say, www.company.fi instead of www.company.com (which would take you to a global, english-language site instead). This goes for both multinational corporations and local companies. Apart from that, a number of very small island countries re-sell their TLDs because they have funny meanings in other parts of the world, but that's really a minority of all the two-letter TLD's currently in use.
I'd say it pretty much works as designed.