What we need is the spread of viruses/worms/trojans whose payload is the removal of malware...Of course, deploying something like that would break all sorts of computer security laws.
Perhaps the way to do this is to do the one thing the black hats are not doing: Get the user's consent to install. Use the same IE exploits, but with consent.
I like the idea of reputable, popular sites offering immunization anitbodies to malware viruses as part of the IE browsing experience. Some people will go ahead and install the antibodies and others will get sick of the chatter and switch to a secure browser. Win-Win if you ask me.
The last time I checked, the US generates very little electricity from oil. It's coal and nuclear these days.
I made the same observation. However, the point being made is that we generate electricity in ways that put carbon in the air, keep in mind that more than 50% comes from coal
Why not give users feedback about their browser or the browser compatibility of sites? I think it would be nice if Google would tell IE users with Active X on that a site they're about to visit contains Active X and may be a threat to their system.
Better yet, consider standards compliance and accessibility when ranking pages.
If Google wants to use their position to police the Internet, why stop with Spyware. Test whether people have a secure browser and tell them when they don't:
"FYI, your version of IE is 3 years out of date. Please go here to upgrade it, or go here to replace it."
``Your scientists were so preoccupied with what they could do, that they didn't stop to think about whether they should do it.''
-- Ian Malcolm (played by Jeff Goldblum) in Jurassic Park
A CS degree may teach you how to do things; but, without some foundation in Philosophy, programmers may be less likely to stand up against being asked to do unethical things.
Well, I'd bet a significant percentage of that is lighting, outlets, headphone jacks, call buttons, exit lights, etc. which cannot be replaced by wireless (except maybe moving to Wireless headphones -- which would rock).
When Slashdot is running properly, the best part about it is that it loads fast. While these new designs look a little nicer, all we seem to be getting for our trouble will be slower page loads.
Also, I want to second what others have said about scaling the fonts, none of these designs seem to scale the fonts gracefully. I personally design for 12pt and ensure that it can still be read up to 18pt.
but to attribute the decline in the Google shareprice because of the DOJ action is silly.
I wouldn't be so sure of that, but not for the reasons mentioned.
Would you still use Google for searching if you knew that your searches will be handed over to the government? If the DOJ wants to know who's using Google to search for what, it could eat into Google's revenue as people switch to alternatives to dodge DOJ eavesdropping.
The first ISP that tries this should be put out of business through a billion metaphorical "paper cuts." The rest of the world can simply refuse to reply to packets from their IP space. They'll lose customers at the speed of light when half the Internet goes voluntarily inaccessible to Bell South's IP addresses.
Networks are fast discovering that this data is just as if not more valuable than the Neilsen data because it has a MUCH larger sampling pool combined with the fact that TiVo users are more likely to have disposable income (more valuable for advertisers)
Sorry, can't let this go. Given the ease with which viewer can ignore advertising on a TiVo, wouldn't you, as an advertiser, steer far clear of shows that are disproportionately popular with TiVo users. I'd compare Nielson ratings with TiVo "ratings" and stay away from ones that we're more popular on TiVo than Nielson if I were in advertising.
I'm working on a system where users have to enter a username, password, and a passkey. The security protocol makes it so that the user is the only person who has all three pieces.
I expect it to completely elude canned scripts that are designed to brute force a username/password kind of setup.
Of course, this system will not escape keyloggers as all three things need to be typed in.
I've given some thought to generating a new key each time the user successfully logs in as a means of circumventing keylogging compromised machines. Essentially, each successful login will cause the just used passkey to be tossed in favor of a new passkey displayed to the user after login. The obvious downside is that the user has to remember a new key after each login. Anything else I'm missing?
how does this obligate me to pay the NYT for archive access?
You are by no means obligated. The issue that I was disputing is whether $50/year for an online subscription to the NYT was worth it. And my argument is that if you actually value being informed as part of your news service, then paying for a subscription to the online version of a print outlet is worth more than any TV/Online source and easily worth the subscription cost.
I'm sorry, but I don't get this attitude. Do people really think that news should be free?
Newspapers are very important to our society. It is the only medium in which the reader is actually paying for the news they receive. Why is that important? Well, strangely enough, just about everyone works to serve the interests of the people paying them. TV news, especially Cable networks, aren't paid for by the people watching -- just the advertisers. Newspapers are partly paid for by advertising, but they wouldn't exist without paid subscribers.
Try this experiment at home:
Buy a newspaper, say the NYT for example. Then check sites like CNN, Fox, etc. to see if they are carrying anything like the depth of stories you see in the newspaper. I'll bet that on the International News and Business side you won't find more than 60-70% of the stories on the news websites. For local news, try comparing your local paper to your local TV news website. It'll be just simply embarassing for the TV guys.
Now, try to tell me that 14 cents a day isn't worth the difference in coverage between Print and TV/Online coverage.
I think that before you say anything about the recent bunkruptcy law shakedown...
I think you missed my point. The change in the law makes it harder for everyone, young adults suckered into cards and single mothers alike, to wipe the slate clean.
America is creeping slowly toward "one strike and you're out."
Once a criminal, always a criminal. Once hopelessly in debt, always hopelessly in debt.
I know that it's very easy to target sex offenders because we neither understand them nor do we wish to. But at some point, you have to say enough is enough. This country is moving more and more toward a zero redemption policy for criminals and is making it easier and easier to become one. It seems we are content to create a permanent criminal class and to work constantly to segregate them from ourselves. Soon 1 in 100 Americans will be in prison. Does anyone feel safer for this?
Slightly off topic, but consider this also: With the passing of the lastest revision to Bankruptcy laws, people will find it even harder to free themselves from the debt they are too easily enticed into because they are brought up in a school system that doesn't offer an education in money management. When these people cannot pay their debts, they will become either literal wage slaves or criminals. How far are we from bringing back debtors prisons?
If these factors (as mentioned in TFA) are the only factors, I think Google will placing a greater emphasis on (large|corporate) sites:
average story length
This one is probably most up for grabs -- although we'll have to see if the formula prefers longer or shorter stories.
number with bylines
This too is up for grabs. Certainly a willingness to put your name on a story helps for credibility.
number of the bureaux cited
This certainly favors (large|corporate) organizations. A news source that sites many sources will tend to either have staffed those themselves or can afford to pay for those sources.
how long they have been in business
Hopefully this won't be too great a factor. This will heavily favor giant print media and severly punish Web firms.
number of staff a news source employs
This will, by definition, punish the little guy. More good news for the print guys though.
volume of internet traffic to its website
Umm, can you say "the rich getting richer"? Should monkey-see, monkey-do really be a criteria? Plus, more traffic most likely means bookmarks. I have the BBC bookmarked and browse their headlines/articles sometimes four times a day. If I go searching for news, I'm not really interested in BBC results.
number of countries accessing the site
This is probably the most interesting criteria in terms of the effect it will have. It should have a really interesting impact on CNN. If this criteria is heavily weighted, CNN may have to rethink their whole policy of segregating visitors into different domains based on where they're reading the site from. Still, it can only serve to promote bigger sites at the expense of smaller ones.
What I find interesting is the criteria they leave out:
While news stories are too new to achieve much in terms of page rank, one indicator of Trust might be the factor in the number of links into the news source's domain from non-news sources.
Editorial Bias is another interesting factor in news searches. It would be nice to see google track a source's leanings in this sort of fashion and include that information in the details about the results. Too many people take what they read from a single source as gospel. It would be nice to know which way sources lean before clicking through to them.
Your unquestioning compliance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.*
Thank You,
The Management
* By supplying your thumb print, you agree to abide by our Terms of Service. You may request a copy of the Terms of Service directly from our Corporate Headquarters.
I think you give the grand parent too much credit in granting the premise that Corporate charters are granted to "advance the public good" at all. That might have been the intent 200+ years ago when they were debating creating a national bank; but, Corporations are all about shielding their owners from liability, unearned income (i.e., profit), and self-preservation.
Because of the generally selfish nature of the artificial entities we call Corporations, one would expect that we will always advocate for legislation that is in their best interest, often at cross-purposes to the "public good."
I would suggest that Corporations have no place in the political/legislative process what-so-ever -- advocating neither for nor against legislation; and, interestingly, that is also in the interest of share-holders as profits are not wasted on advocacy.
As an aside, would the Free State Project support passing a gay-rights bill in New Hampshire; or, is that not the kind of Liberty you have in mind?
Slashdot Mirror
What we need is the spread of viruses/worms/trojans whose payload is the removal of malware...Of course, deploying something like that would break all sorts of computer security laws.
Perhaps the way to do this is to do the one thing the black hats are not doing: Get the user's consent to install. Use the same IE exploits, but with consent.
I like the idea of reputable, popular sites offering immunization anitbodies to malware viruses as part of the IE browsing experience. Some people will go ahead and install the antibodies and others will get sick of the chatter and switch to a secure browser. Win-Win if you ask me.
The last time I checked, the US generates very little electricity from oil. It's coal and nuclear these days.
I made the same observation. However, the point being made is that we generate electricity in ways that put carbon in the air, keep in mind that more than 50% comes from coal
Why not give users feedback about their browser or the browser compatibility of sites? I think it would be nice if Google would tell IE users with Active X on that a site they're about to visit contains Active X and may be a threat to their system.
Better yet, consider standards compliance and accessibility when ranking pages.
If Google wants to use their position to police the Internet, why stop with Spyware. Test whether people have a secure browser and tell them when they don't:
"FYI, your version of IE is 3 years out of date. Please go here to upgrade it, or go here to replace it."
They could fix a lot of the problem right there.
A CS degree may teach you how to do things; but, without some foundation in
Philosophy, programmers may be less likely to stand up against being asked to do unethical things.
a 737 contains 36 miles of electrical wire
Well, I'd bet a significant percentage of that is lighting, outlets, headphone jacks, call buttons, exit lights, etc. which cannot be replaced by wireless (except maybe moving to Wireless headphones -- which would rock).
When Slashdot is running properly, the best part about it is that it loads fast. While these new designs look a little nicer, all we seem to be getting for our trouble will be slower page loads.
Also, I want to second what others have said about scaling the fonts, none of these designs seem to scale the fonts gracefully. I personally design for 12pt and ensure that it can still be read up to 18pt.
but to attribute the decline in the Google shareprice because of the DOJ action is silly.
I wouldn't be so sure of that, but not for the reasons mentioned.
Would you still use Google for searching if you knew that your searches will be handed over to the government? If the DOJ wants to know who's using Google to search for what, it could eat into Google's revenue as people switch to alternatives to dodge DOJ eavesdropping.
Apparently, none of the moderators bother to follow links. The linked page is a parody written by Steve Martin.
According to Bill O'Reilly
If they want me to pay taxes out-of-state, they can give me a representative to vote on my behald in their state.
They want to allow your state to require a retailer out of state to collect sales tax on your purchases for payment to your state.
The first ISP that tries this should be put out of business through a billion metaphorical "paper cuts." The rest of the world can simply refuse to reply to packets from their IP space. They'll lose customers at the speed of light when half the Internet goes voluntarily inaccessible to Bell South's IP addresses.
Interesting ... but what will the call the new company?
Let's see:
Yahoo! market cap: 53.10B
TiVo market cap: 449M
I think the new company will be called Yahoo! and TiVo will be a division/subsidiary at best.
This article was submitted by:
;)
Carl Bialik from the WSJ
AKA
wsjarticles@wsj.com
and the story is at:
http://online.wsj.com/public/...
I'm sure it's just a coincidence
Relatively speaking, technology gets both better and cheaper over time.
Networks are fast discovering that this data is just as if not more valuable than the Neilsen data because it has a MUCH larger sampling pool combined with the fact that TiVo users are more likely to have disposable income (more valuable for advertisers)
Sorry, can't let this go. Given the ease with which viewer can ignore advertising on a TiVo, wouldn't you, as an advertiser, steer far clear of shows that are disproportionately popular with TiVo users. I'd compare Nielson ratings with TiVo "ratings" and stay away from ones that we're more popular on TiVo than Nielson if I were in advertising.
I'm working on a system where users have to enter a username, password, and a passkey. The security protocol makes it so that the user is the only person who has all three pieces.
I expect it to completely elude canned scripts that are designed to brute force a username/password kind of setup.
Of course, this system will not escape keyloggers as all three things need to be typed in.
I've given some thought to generating a new key each time the user successfully logs in as a means of circumventing keylogging compromised machines. Essentially, each successful login will cause the just used passkey to be tossed in favor of a new passkey displayed to the user after login. The obvious downside is that the user has to remember a new key after each login. Anything else I'm missing?
how does this obligate me to pay the NYT for archive access?
You are by no means obligated. The issue that I was disputing is whether $50/year for an online subscription to the NYT was worth it. And my argument is that if you actually value being informed as part of your news service, then paying for a subscription to the online version of a print outlet is worth more than any TV/Online source and easily worth the subscription cost.
certainly not worth $50 a year for me to access
I'm sorry, but I don't get this attitude. Do people really think that news should be free?
Newspapers are very important to our society. It is the only medium in which the reader is actually paying for the news they receive. Why is that important? Well, strangely enough, just about everyone works to serve the interests of the people paying them. TV news, especially Cable networks, aren't paid for by the people watching -- just the advertisers. Newspapers are partly paid for by advertising, but they wouldn't exist without paid subscribers.
Try this experiment at home:
Buy a newspaper, say the NYT for example. Then check sites like CNN, Fox, etc. to see if they are carrying anything like the depth of stories you see in the newspaper. I'll bet that on the International News and Business side you won't find more than 60-70% of the stories on the news websites. For local news, try comparing your local paper to your local TV news website. It'll be just simply embarassing for the TV guys.
Now, try to tell me that 14 cents a day isn't worth the difference in coverage between Print and TV/Online coverage.
I think that before you say anything about the recent bunkruptcy law shakedown...
I think you missed my point. The change in the law makes it harder for everyone, young adults suckered into cards and single mothers alike, to wipe the slate clean.
America is creeping slowly toward "one strike and you're out."
Once a criminal, always a criminal. Once hopelessly in debt, always hopelessly in debt.
Take of your blinders.
I know that it's very easy to target sex offenders because we neither understand them nor do we wish to. But at some point, you have to say enough is enough. This country is moving more and more toward a zero redemption policy for criminals and is making it easier and easier to become one. It seems we are content to create a permanent criminal class and to work constantly to segregate them from ourselves. Soon 1 in 100 Americans will be in prison. Does anyone feel safer for this?
Slightly off topic, but consider this also: With the passing of the lastest revision to Bankruptcy laws, people will find it even harder to free themselves from the debt they are too easily enticed into because they are brought up in a school system that doesn't offer an education in money management. When these people cannot pay their debts, they will become either literal wage slaves or criminals. How far are we from bringing back debtors prisons?
If these factors (as mentioned in TFA) are the only factors, I think Google will placing a greater emphasis on (large|corporate) sites:
average story length
This one is probably most up for grabs -- although we'll have to see if the formula prefers longer or shorter stories.
number with bylines
This too is up for grabs. Certainly a willingness to put your name on a story helps for credibility.
number of the bureaux cited
This certainly favors (large|corporate) organizations. A news source that sites many sources will tend to either have staffed those themselves or can afford to pay for those sources.
how long they have been in business
Hopefully this won't be too great a factor. This will heavily favor giant print media and severly punish Web firms.
number of staff a news source employs
This will, by definition, punish the little guy. More good news for the print guys though.
volume of internet traffic to its website
Umm, can you say "the rich getting richer"? Should monkey-see, monkey-do really be a criteria? Plus, more traffic most likely means bookmarks. I have the BBC bookmarked and browse their headlines/articles sometimes four times a day. If I go searching for news, I'm not really interested in BBC results.
number of countries accessing the site
This is probably the most interesting criteria in terms of the effect it will have. It should have a really interesting impact on CNN. If this criteria is heavily weighted, CNN may have to rethink their whole policy of segregating visitors into different domains based on where they're reading the site from. Still, it can only serve to promote bigger sites at the expense of smaller ones.
What I find interesting is the criteria they leave out:
While news stories are too new to achieve much in terms of page rank, one indicator of Trust might be the factor in the number of links into the news source's domain from non-news sources.
Editorial Bias is another interesting factor in news searches. It would be nice to see google track a source's leanings in this sort of fashion and include that information in the details about the results. Too many people take what they read from a single source as gospel. It would be nice to know which way sources lean before clicking through to them.
but you'll have to press your thumb in the box below to read my response.
. .....I
I..........I
I..........I
I..........I
I....
I..........I
Your unquestioning compliance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.*
Thank You,
The Management
* By supplying your thumb print, you agree to abide by our Terms of Service. You may request a copy of the Terms of Service directly from our Corporate Headquarters.
I think you give the grand parent too much credit in granting the premise that Corporate charters are granted to "advance the public good" at all. That might have been the intent 200+ years ago when they were debating creating a national bank; but, Corporations are all about shielding their owners from liability, unearned income (i.e., profit), and self-preservation.
Because of the generally selfish nature of the artificial entities we call Corporations, one would expect that we will always advocate for legislation that is in their best interest, often at cross-purposes to the "public good."
I would suggest that Corporations have no place in the political/legislative process what-so-ever -- advocating neither for nor against legislation; and, interestingly, that is also in the interest of share-holders as profits are not wasted on advocacy.
As an aside, would the Free State Project support passing a gay-rights bill in New Hampshire; or, is that not the kind of Liberty you have in mind?
I may have picked the wrong week to stop <verb> <noun>.
I think you mean <gerund noun> <noun> (e.g., smoking crack)
gerunds
While the question isn't a dupe of this, it's close enough. Follow the link to Monday's story for a thorough discussion.