"...so let's keep these to ways of doing it correctly..."
Problem is, there is really no way of "doing it correctly", and that is exactly why I'm strongly against software filtering. The system you espouse would be an improvement over what's out there now, but even if run perfectly would still result in legitimate sites getting blocked.
A far better solution, in my books, is to put the machines with Internet access where an adult can see the monitors over the kids shoulder. After all, the only thing stronger than a fourteen year old male libido is that same fourteen year old's fear of public humiliation, hey? If there is a good chance that they'll get caught browsing porn, they'll censor themselves.
Nonono, those're the forlks in more sophisticated West Laconia. East Laconia got its name when the West Laconians bought it in a half-hearted attempt to find a place that didn't suck quite so badly as their homeland....but then nobody cared enough to actually relocate, and East Laconia has been left essentially unchanged to this day.
Mnumchtuk, East Laconia -- The Internet has arrived here in Mnumchtuk amid a fury of controversy. "Ever since the Internet has came, I am having troubles with the children not milking the goats as they should. They stay inside all the day, doing some thing they say is called 'Quake'. It has made life very hard", stated town elder Mnashtra Npaupau in a an interview earlier this week. "Without the goats milk, how can we pay proper respect to the Great Bizmati? But the children, they have no interest in religion any more."
But the Internet is not without its benefits, Mnashtra has concluded: "But then, it has brought us many pictures of most gloriously naked women with tremendously big kayountas", he adds, smiling wryly, "so it is not all so bad."
You compare owning copyright to owning a house...but the two are very different things. Ownership of a physical object is simple. I have it, I own it, it's here in my hand, and that's that. If you want one, you can make one like it, true, but that requires work on your part and materials. Otherwise, you can buy mine, giving me something that I value as much as the Thing in question to recompense me for the effort and and materials that went into making It, and also to recompense me for the loss of Its use. And if you steal It, well, I'm out all of those things and have nothing to show for it.
Information isn't like that.
If I discover the Great and Mighty Secret(G&MS) behind the production of a better peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and I choose to share my knowledge with you, I still know the G&MS myself. Just because I showed you how to do it in no way deprives me of the ability to make my new and improved PB&J sandwich. And if I share that secret out, then society can only benefit from it -- someone might be inspired by my G&MS into producing a more flavorful tofu, for instance -- but there's a hitch...what if I spent $100 on experimentation to get the recipe just right? Shouldn't there be a mechanism in place that allows me to recoup my research investment as well as give me a chance to reap some reward for improving humanity's lot? It's only fair...so we come up with an arrangement where for the first little while, I'm the only guy who has the right to produce this new improved sandwich (and I can license that right to others), giving me a chance to benefit from my creativity. But it can only be temporary, else how si that information going to eventually get out to that guy experimenting with tofu and inspire him to _his_ great contribution to the culinary arts? And that's the origianl basis for copyright law....recognizing that society reaps the most benefit from the free exchange of information, but acknowledging that the folks who come up with the ideas need some incentive (and reward) for doing so. Copyright law is a compromise, allowing us to make our PB&J sandwiches and (eventually) eat them, too.
Maybe he's of the mindset that, since he doesn't have any privacy, none of us should either. Afterall, if the press has the right to butt its collective nose into, er, "affairs of state", then why shouldn't everyone else be subject to the same level of scrutiny?
It's not like holding one of the most influential offices in the world obligates a body to submit to a higher level of public scrutiny than the average Joe....no, of course not!
-- WhiskeyJack, not being sarcastic at all. Really.
Damn all Trolls to the infernal netherworld of Bill Gates' sex dungeon! May their noses be cleft and fornicated with! May their navel lint spontaneously combust while a three-leggeed cocker spaniel gnaws on their scurvy-yellowed eyes! May their tongues be wrenched from their mouths and used to flagellate wet poodles. And, most dread curse of all, may they be forced to beta test the next Windows release!
First of all, the "little Johnny" in my example was a young teen -- someone who might be actively looking for porn. I have yet to go to a library where someone of his age was restricted from the general stacks (nor should they be).... yet the general stacks _do_ contain material that many parents would find objectionable for Johnny to read. It is _not_ the librarian's job to look over Johnny's shoulder to see what book he's pulled from the shelves and judge whether it is suitable for his young mind; if it were, then the already overworked librarians of this world wouldn't stand a chance of doing a good job of it, and the liability they'd be subject to would be staggering ("What? My Johnny saw pictures of naked women in _your_ library on _your_ shift? I'll see to it you're charged with aiding the corruption of a minor, buddy!"). Any parent that expects the library to provide anything other than the most basic limitation on what Johnny can get to (putting the Playboys behind the front desk, for instance) is expecting too much...and if they turn Johnny loose unsupervised in the library without knowing he's mature enough to make responsible decisions as to what material he seeks out, they (and not the librarians) are being irresponsible. Not negligent, as you imply I said, but irresponsible. There _is_ a difference.
You seem to think this position is unreasonable, and you're entitled to that opinion. I also agree that there are far worse places in the world to turn your kid loose in than the library. I just think it completely unrealistic to hold the librarian responsible for making sure your kids don't find their way into a copy of "DuPont's Guide to Blasting" or "Our Bodies, Ourselves" if you don't want them reading such things, because there's really no way for the librarian to do that without becoming a full time babysitter. That's what parents are for.
First and foremost, the public library's role is to provide access to information to their patrons. Imposing software filters interferes with this mission, denying what could be very useful information to people who have little other way of getting access to it. To me, this is a far greater evil than the possibility that little Johnny might see some porn on the net.
More importantly, little Johnny shouldn't even be at the library without his parents unless they deem him mature enough to make responsible decisions about what information he seeks out. Afterall, most libraries contain information about explosives, erotica, and texts on human sexuality complete with graphic illustrations and photos, without any access control to prevent Johnny from getting his hands on them. The librarians are there to help people find information, not to babysit some irresponsible parents' children.
Third, filtering is very ineffective at blocking content that many folks find objectionable. There are countless examples of XXX-rated imagery that can be accessed through the filters, and what would little Johnny care if 99% of such websites are blocked when he'd really only need to access one to get his jollies? A far more effective approach would be to make sure the internet-linked machines were all in a public place, where little Johnny is very aware that others have a good possibility of seeing just what he's been downloading. Even the sex drive of a horny fourteen-year-old is no match to the powerful deterrent of public embarrassment.
So why pass ineffective laws so irresponsible parents can foist their kids off on librarians with a guilt-free conscience, and infringe on the ability of others to access information that might otherwise be denied them in the process? The law does _nothing_ to solve the perceived problem of children accessing porn, while limiting legitimate use of the internet; its only purpose is to allow a bunch of parents and politicians to point triumphantly and say, "See, we are doing something to protect the children!" when that something amounts to the equivalent of running around in circles while your neighbor's house burns down. That's just plain stupid.
That's like me trying to post stories about how I ate tuna for lunch in my lovely town/state. No one else cares but me, or crazy tuna lovers.
I'm not intending this to be a flame, but that attitude is incredibly shortsighted.
The happenings in Holland, MI are relevent to everyone in the US (read: the majority of/. readers) because they serve as a test of strength of those organizations that are pushing internet censorship. Holland is the first battle in a war that is being waged (or will be soon) everywhere in the country, and one we cannot be complacent in; those pushing censorship have been mobilizing their troops nationwide for quite some time, and they just happened to launch their first attack in Holland. Anyone who finds the idea of filter software appalling needs to mobilize as well.
This parallels my own research into producing methane gas by combining rednecks and beer. The process only has one remainign hurdle to overcome: isolating the rednecks from their pickup trucks so they live long enough to provide enough methane to hit the break-even point. Unfortunately, this has proven nearly impossible (with pickup trucks apparently playing a critical role in the redneck reproductive process), resulting in the untimely (and often spectacular) demise of 87% of my test subjects within the first two days of the study (usually preceded by the words "Hold m'beer, Bubba, and watch this!"). We've also run into unexpected expenses which lead me to believe that this process doesn't hold quite so much promise as I initially projected (who could've predicted we'd need to spend $347,000 on pink garden flamingoes?), and the cost overruns make the future of this study uncertain.
The more time you spend on the Net, the less time you spend with friends.
The more time you spend reading, the less time you spend with friends.
The more time you spend on contemplative walks in the woods, the less time you spend with friends.
Simply put, we have a finite amount of time to work with, and any time we choose a solitary activity, we also choose a more "lonely" life (Something I think anyone with a modicum of intelligence would grasp immediately). This is not a bad thing -- solitude is something I value far more than social contact, and if I didn't spend time on the net, I'd be spending time curled up with a good book or out back in the smithy (alone) pounding iron or taking a leisurely hike up Acadia Mountain (again alone).
Why does anyone make a big deal out of this? Some people choose to be less social than others, and our activities reflect that. Time spent on the net is just another such activity...and I balance that time with my other interests, just like everyone else.
Telepresence? Heck, no....download a human brain into the onboard computer (like Ray Kurzweil suggested a while back), then send that to do the exploration. When it gets back, view the data first hand.;)
The two monks stand side by side, facing the altar, behind which a graven image of the Great and Benevolent Tux stands with wings half spread as he contemplates the GNU/Path to True Enlightenment Through Open Source. One monk wears a single pearl upon his forehead, glimmering in the flickering light of the altar candles. The other sports a torc in the form of a serpent entwined around his upper arm. The gaze upon the image of Tux placidly, each at inner peace.
The monk with the pearl breaks the silence: "Good brother, I see your movement grow by leaps and bounds. How is this so?"
The monk with the serpent replies: "It is our more disciplined coding, brother, which more quickly leads down the One True Path of Enlightenment. Discipline of code leads to discipline of mind and body."
Pearl: "But what of tailoring the Quest to the individual? Be flexible like water, and in time, even stone will fall before it."
Serpent: "Be structured like iron, and the stone will fall faster."
Pearl: "But each mind is different, and should be allowed to find their own path."
Serpent: "There is but one Path, brother, just many ways to find it. Ours is the quickest and most sure."
The candles on the altar continue to flicker as the two monks fall into a few moments silent contemplation.
Pearl: "I am afraid I must disagree."
Serpent: "So you say, but you know the truth in your heart. Did not your order adopt the doctrine of OOP despite the conflicts with your order's earlier, strictly procedural ways?"
Pearl: "OOP is just one path of many."
Serpent: "It is the soul of the Way."
Pearl: "And so you seek to challenge the longstanding authority of the Order of the Pearl? We have existed longer, and are closer to the Truth!"
Serpent: "You wander blind in the mists, poor deluded souls, while the True Way beckons! You can yet change your $PATH."
Pearl: "You speak heresy! Leave the Holy Temple before the Great and Benevolent Tux smites you!"
Serpent: "I speak Truth, and you are but too mad to see it! I curse you and your Order! The Way of the Serpent will triumph!"
And the monk with the serpent turns and stalks out of the Temple, growling, "We will be back, and in numbers! The Temple will be ours!"
The monk with the pearl watches his counterpart leave, turning back to the altar and shaking his head. "We will be waiting, and the Great and Benevolent Tux is on our side!"
"People ask us why we did it...what possible use could anyone have for Gigibit Ethernet?", said National Semiconductor exec Ben Dover-Freely. "Well, an anonymous donor in Redmond subsidized the project, citing the need for more bandwidth to handle the volume of por...er...stockquotes he needs to keep abreast of the market and keep a firm hold on the economic issues close to hand. A masterstroke of innovation, if you ask me. I'm glad we could rise to the challenge and provide a hardcore solution to most pressing problem."
...Linux and the other Open Source Operating Systems (OSOSes?) would win, because suddenly there would be a high demand for non-Windows office apps, games, and more which would pull developers to the new OSes like flies....and thereby solving one of the single biggest weaknesses in current OSOSes -- lack of applications for the enduser.
...might be to build investor confidence and drive their stock up a tetch to make any retooling they need to do to produce the new processors in bulk just a tiny bit more affordable....;)
After reading the poll beginning to end, I have no choice but to conclude the poll was not-so-subtly biased in Microsoft's favor.
Example:
Some people say that Microsoft has repeatedly benefited consumers with its products. Others say Microsoft's business practices have hurt consumers. Which side do you agree with more?
First, this question mistates the issues at hand by mixing Microsoft's products with Microsoft's business practices. I can approve of their products (I rather enjoy Microsoft's Flight Simulator) while being utterly abhored by their business practices (as I am), yet this question makes the two items inseparable. And because most Americans have familiarity with MS products (and little else) and almost _no_ familiarity with MS's predatory business practices, this question amounts to asking "Have you benefitted from MS software?". One top of that inherent bias, they spin things further by using the word "repeatedly" on the pro side, implying that more people hold this view, thereby subtly tapping into the bandwagon effect.
Another example:
Some people say Microsoft has strong competitors -- they point to the recent merger of America Online and Time Warner, as well as companies like Sony, Sun, and Apple. Other people say Microsoft doesn't have strong competitors. Which side do you agree with more?
With this question, they essentially provide the (specious) argument supporting the idea that MS has strong competition (which in certain markets they do, largely from the companies listed), while ignoring the fact that MS has a strong lock on the desktop OS market. Anyway, by including an argument to support one side of the issue (however baseless), they blatantly bias the poll toward that opinion.
You're right, the updates would be the bottleneck of the whoel shebang, not only in the terms of the bandwidth the larger index files would eat, but in terms of processor time on the search servers as they integrate the various index files into one coherent whole.
But here's a thought: How about having the search servers drop out of the cluster to perform updates, therefore dropping the load of fulfilling search requests while in the throes of creating a new index? Admittedly, it doesn't do a whole lot for the bandwidth bottleneck, but it'd make the processor hit a little less severe.
As for passing the indexes, they'd have to be signed for security (don't want spam/pr0n seeding the index), and compressed as far as possible. They'll tend to be pretty hefty regardless of what we do to 'em....but maybe we can get them down small enough to not pose too much of a bandwidth hit, particularly if each search node limits its updates to offpeak hours.
You're right, though: it'll take a lot of doing to get it right. Up for trying?:)
What would be more useful is a cluster of machines, each having the whole database.
That was _exactly_ what I was proposing.
Each node indexes a subset of the web. It then passes on its local index to the other nodes that make up the cluster, so that each individual node can accumulate a copy of the master index. Search requests are then routed to the individual nodes based on how many requests each node is currently processing, how quickly they've been responding, etc, so that none of the disparate machines that make up the search cluster get overloaded with requests. And if one of the nodes is slow to respond, the portal could just resend the request to another available node.
Those that didn't want to host requests but still wanted to help with the effort could run spiders that index a small portion of the web and make that index available to the central cluster, thereby distributing the workload further (and allowing sites to index their local networks, forinstance, where they typically have higher speed connections, then dump the resulting index off to the cluster during offpeak hours). This allows local admins to index whatever portions of their site they want as often as they want just by setting up their webserver as an index-only node in the cluster. Get enough sites doing that, and you're going to get pretty up to date results.
The indexes would only get passed on to the nodes that request them...with a little effort, it wouldn't be hard to set up request routes to allow indexes to flow from node to node via the fastest network connections possible, minimizing crosstalk between nodes (you just pass any downstream indexes upstream and vice-versa, adding in your own locally aquired index along the way) -- have the indexes propigate like news articles.
The portal machine would only need to maintain a list of IP addresses weighted according to how big a load each site is willing and able to handle, so its processor load will be minimal. Put a moderate-sized machine on the end of a big network pipe, and a few thousand nodes scattered all over the net, and you might have one nice search engine.
Sounds liek an idea for an open source project -- a distributed search engine. Each node indexes a small part of the net and shares the results with every node that requests it... then all we need is a few high volume portals to direct requests to the various member nodes (taking into account their relative speed and balancing the load) and we've got one potentially big, reliable, and fast search engine.
Slashdot Mirror
"...so let's keep these to ways of doing it correctly..."
Problem is, there is really no way of "doing it correctly", and that is exactly why I'm strongly against software filtering. The system you espouse would be an improvement over what's out there now, but even if run perfectly would still result in legitimate sites getting blocked.
A far better solution, in my books, is to put the machines with Internet access where an adult can see the monitors over the kids shoulder. After all, the only thing stronger than a fourteen year old male libido is that same fourteen year old's fear of public humiliation, hey? If there is a good chance that they'll get caught browsing porn, they'll censor themselves.
-- WhiskeyJack
Manga cum laude? You're getting a degree in anime? Cool! Where can I sign up for that program??
-- WhiskeyJack
Nonono, those're the forlks in more sophisticated West Laconia. East Laconia got its name when the West Laconians bought it in a half-hearted attempt to find a place that didn't suck quite so badly as their homeland....but then nobody cared enough to actually relocate, and East Laconia has been left essentially unchanged to this day.
-- WhiskeyJack
But the Internet is not without its benefits, Mnashtra has concluded: "But then, it has brought us many pictures of most gloriously naked women with tremendously big kayountas", he adds, smiling wryly, "so it is not all so bad."
-- WhiskyJack
You compare owning copyright to owning a house...but the two are very different things. Ownership of a physical object is simple. I have it, I own it, it's here in my hand, and that's that. If you want one, you can make one like it, true, but that requires work on your part and materials. Otherwise, you can buy mine, giving me something that I value as much as the Thing in question to recompense me for the effort and and materials that went into making It, and also to recompense me for the loss of Its use. And if you steal It, well, I'm out all of those things and have nothing to show for it.
Information isn't like that.
If I discover the Great and Mighty Secret(G&MS) behind the production of a better peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and I choose to share my knowledge with you, I still know the G&MS myself. Just because I showed you how to do it in no way deprives me of the ability to make my new and improved PB&J sandwich. And if I share that secret out, then society can only benefit from it -- someone might be inspired by my G&MS into producing a more flavorful tofu, for instance -- but there's a hitch...what if I spent $100 on experimentation to get the recipe just right? Shouldn't there be a mechanism in place that allows me to recoup my research investment as well as give me a chance to reap some reward for improving humanity's lot? It's only fair...so we come up with an arrangement where for the first little while, I'm the only guy who has the right to produce this new improved sandwich (and I can license that right to others), giving me a chance to benefit from my creativity. But it can only be temporary, else how si that information going to eventually get out to that guy experimenting with tofu and inspire him to _his_ great contribution to the culinary arts? And that's the origianl basis for copyright law....recognizing that society reaps the most benefit from the free exchange of information, but acknowledging that the folks who come up with the ideas need some incentive (and reward) for doing so. Copyright law is a compromise, allowing us to make our PB&J sandwiches and (eventually) eat them, too.
--WhiskeyJack
Maybe he's of the mindset that, since he doesn't have any privacy, none of us should either. Afterall, if the press has the right to butt its collective nose into, er, "affairs of state", then why shouldn't everyone else be subject to the same level of scrutiny?
It's not like holding one of the most influential offices in the world obligates a body to submit to a higher level of public scrutiny than the average Joe....no, of course not!
-- WhiskeyJack, not being sarcastic at all. Really.
Damn all Trolls to the infernal netherworld of Bill Gates' sex dungeon! May their noses be cleft and fornicated with! May their navel lint spontaneously combust while a three-leggeed cocker spaniel gnaws on their scurvy-yellowed eyes! May their tongues be wrenched from their mouths and used to flagellate wet poodles. And, most dread curse of all, may they be forced to beta test the next Windows release!
-- WhiskeyJack, feeling _much_ better now.
I'm just waiting for the /. Troll to propose setting one of these puppies up to compute the fluid dynamics of hot grits.... :P
-- WhiskeyJack, wincing in anticipation.
First of all, the "little Johnny" in my example was a young teen -- someone who might be actively looking for porn. I have yet to go to a library where someone of his age was restricted from the general stacks (nor should they be).... yet the general stacks _do_ contain material that many parents would find objectionable for Johnny to read. It is _not_ the librarian's job to look over Johnny's shoulder to see what book he's pulled from the shelves and judge whether it is suitable for his young mind; if it were, then the already overworked librarians of this world wouldn't stand a chance of doing a good job of it, and the liability they'd be subject to would be staggering ("What? My Johnny saw pictures of naked women in _your_ library on _your_ shift? I'll see to it you're charged with aiding the corruption of a minor, buddy!"). Any parent that expects the library to provide anything other than the most basic limitation on what Johnny can get to (putting the Playboys behind the front desk, for instance) is expecting too much...and if they turn Johnny loose unsupervised in the library without knowing he's mature enough to make responsible decisions as to what material he seeks out, they (and not the librarians) are being irresponsible. Not negligent, as you imply I said, but irresponsible. There _is_ a difference.
You seem to think this position is unreasonable, and you're entitled to that opinion. I also agree that there are far worse places in the world to turn your kid loose in than the library. I just think it completely unrealistic to hold the librarian responsible for making sure your kids don't find their way into a copy of "DuPont's Guide to Blasting" or "Our Bodies, Ourselves" if you don't want them reading such things, because there's really no way for the librarian to do that without becoming a full time babysitter. That's what parents are for.
-- WhiskeyJack
First and foremost, the public library's role is to provide access to information to their patrons. Imposing software filters interferes with this mission, denying what could be very useful information to people who have little other way of getting access to it. To me, this is a far greater evil than the possibility that little Johnny might see some porn on the net.
More importantly, little Johnny shouldn't even be at the library without his parents unless they deem him mature enough to make responsible decisions about what information he seeks out. Afterall, most libraries contain information about explosives, erotica, and texts on human sexuality complete with graphic illustrations and photos, without any access control to prevent Johnny from getting his hands on them. The librarians are there to help people find information, not to babysit some irresponsible parents' children.
Third, filtering is very ineffective at blocking content that many folks find objectionable. There are countless examples of XXX-rated imagery that can be accessed through the filters, and what would little Johnny care if 99% of such websites are blocked when he'd really only need to access one to get his jollies? A far more effective approach would be to make sure the internet-linked machines were all in a public place, where little Johnny is very aware that others have a good possibility of seeing just what he's been downloading. Even the sex drive of a horny fourteen-year-old is no match to the powerful deterrent of public embarrassment.
So why pass ineffective laws so irresponsible parents can foist their kids off on librarians with a guilt-free conscience, and infringe on the ability of others to access information that might otherwise be denied them in the process? The law does _nothing_ to solve the perceived problem of children accessing porn, while limiting legitimate use of the internet; its only purpose is to allow a bunch of parents and politicians to point triumphantly and say, "See, we are doing something to protect the children!" when that something amounts to the equivalent of running around in circles while your neighbor's house burns down. That's just plain stupid.
-- WhiskeyJack
That's like me trying to post stories about how I ate tuna for lunch in my lovely town/state. No one else cares but me, or crazy tuna lovers.
I'm not intending this to be a flame, but that attitude is incredibly shortsighted.
The happenings in Holland, MI are relevent to everyone in the US (read: the majority of /. readers) because they serve as a test of strength of those organizations that are pushing internet censorship. Holland is the first battle in a war that is being waged (or will be soon) everywhere in the country, and one we cannot be complacent in; those pushing censorship have been mobilizing their troops nationwide for quite some time, and they just happened to launch their first attack in Holland. Anyone who finds the idea of filter software appalling needs to mobilize as well.
--WhiskeyJack
This parallels my own research into producing methane gas by combining rednecks and beer. The process only has one remainign hurdle to overcome: isolating the rednecks from their pickup trucks so they live long enough to provide enough methane to hit the break-even point. Unfortunately, this has proven nearly impossible (with pickup trucks apparently playing a critical role in the redneck reproductive process), resulting in the untimely (and often spectacular) demise of 87% of my test subjects within the first two days of the study (usually preceded by the words "Hold m'beer, Bubba, and watch this!"). We've also run into unexpected expenses which lead me to believe that this process doesn't hold quite so much promise as I initially projected (who could've predicted we'd need to spend $347,000 on pink garden flamingoes?), and the cost overruns make the future of this study uncertain.
-- WhiskeyJack
$680 million...?
Cue Kermit singing "It Ain't Easy Being (in the) Green".
-- WhiskeyJack
Maybe because his ideas only caught on after he died? ;)
(Okay, so it was more likely just a typo on Brin's part......)
-- WhiskeyJack
The more time you spend on the Net, the less time you spend with friends.
The more time you spend reading, the less time you spend with friends.
The more time you spend on contemplative walks in the woods, the less time you spend with friends.
Simply put, we have a finite amount of time to work with, and any time we choose a solitary activity, we also choose a more "lonely" life (Something I think anyone with a modicum of intelligence would grasp immediately). This is not a bad thing -- solitude is something I value far more than social contact, and if I didn't spend time on the net, I'd be spending time curled up with a good book or out back in the smithy (alone) pounding iron or taking a leisurely hike up Acadia Mountain (again alone).
Why does anyone make a big deal out of this? Some people choose to be less social than others, and our activities reflect that. Time spent on the net is just another such activity...and I balance that time with my other interests, just like everyone else.
-- WhiskeyJack
Telepresence? Heck, no....download a human brain into the onboard computer (like Ray Kurzweil suggested a while back), then send that to do the exploration. When it gets back, view the data first hand. ;)
-- WhiskeyJack
The two monks stand side by side, facing the altar, behind which a graven image of the Great and Benevolent Tux stands with wings half spread as he contemplates the GNU/Path to True Enlightenment Through Open Source. One monk wears a single pearl upon his forehead, glimmering in the flickering light of the altar candles. The other sports a torc in the form of a serpent entwined around his upper arm. The gaze upon the image of Tux placidly, each at inner peace.
The monk with the pearl breaks the silence: "Good brother, I see your movement grow by leaps and bounds. How is this so?"
The monk with the serpent replies: "It is our more disciplined coding, brother, which more quickly leads down the One True Path of Enlightenment. Discipline of code leads to discipline of mind and body."
Pearl: "But what of tailoring the Quest to the individual? Be flexible like water, and in time, even stone will fall before it."
Serpent: "Be structured like iron, and the stone will fall faster."
Pearl: "But each mind is different, and should be allowed to find their own path."
Serpent: "There is but one Path, brother, just many ways to find it. Ours is the quickest and most sure."
The candles on the altar continue to flicker as the two monks fall into a few moments silent contemplation.
Pearl: "I am afraid I must disagree."
Serpent: "So you say, but you know the truth in your heart. Did not your order adopt the doctrine of OOP despite the conflicts with your order's earlier, strictly procedural ways?"
Pearl: "OOP is just one path of many."
Serpent: "It is the soul of the Way."
Pearl: "And so you seek to challenge the longstanding authority of the Order of the Pearl? We have existed longer, and are closer to the Truth!"
Serpent: "You wander blind in the mists, poor deluded souls, while the True Way beckons! You can yet change your $PATH."
Pearl: "You speak heresy! Leave the Holy Temple before the Great and Benevolent Tux smites you!"
Serpent: "I speak Truth, and you are but too mad to see it! I curse you and your Order! The Way of the Serpent will triumph!"
And the monk with the serpent turns and stalks out of the Temple, growling, "We will be back, and in numbers! The Temple will be ours!"
The monk with the pearl watches his counterpart leave, turning back to the altar and shaking his head. "We will be waiting, and the Great and Benevolent Tux is on our side!"
-- WhiskeyJack, on serious caffeine withdrawal.
"People ask us why we did it...what possible use could anyone have for Gigibit Ethernet?", said National Semiconductor exec Ben Dover-Freely. "Well, an anonymous donor in Redmond subsidized the project, citing the need for more bandwidth to handle the volume of por...er...stockquotes he needs to keep abreast of the market and keep a firm hold on the economic issues close to hand. A masterstroke of innovation, if you ask me. I'm glad we could rise to the challenge and provide a hardcore solution to most pressing problem."
-- WhiskeyJack
...Linux and the other Open Source Operating Systems (OSOSes?) would win, because suddenly there would be a high demand for non-Windows office apps, games, and more which would pull developers to the new OSes like flies....and thereby solving one of the single biggest weaknesses in current OSOSes -- lack of applications for the enduser.
-- WhiskeyJack
...might be to build investor confidence and drive their stock up a tetch to make any retooling they need to do to produce the new processors in bulk just a tiny bit more affordable.... ;)
-- WhiskeyJack
...seems perfectly natural to me. But then again, I _did_ build a Lego trebuchet when I was a kid. It'd throw marbles about forty feet...
Ah, the memories.... :)
--WhiskeyJack
After reading the poll beginning to end, I have no choice but to conclude the poll was not-so-subtly biased in Microsoft's favor.
Example:
First, this question mistates the issues at hand by mixing Microsoft's products with Microsoft's business practices. I can approve of their products (I rather enjoy Microsoft's Flight Simulator) while being utterly abhored by their business practices (as I am), yet this question makes the two items inseparable. And because most Americans have familiarity with MS products (and little else) and almost _no_ familiarity with MS's predatory business practices, this question amounts to asking "Have you benefitted from MS software?". One top of that inherent bias, they spin things further by using the word "repeatedly" on the pro side, implying that more people hold this view, thereby subtly tapping into the bandwagon effect.Another example:
With this question, they essentially provide the (specious) argument supporting the idea that MS has strong competition (which in certain markets they do, largely from the companies listed), while ignoring the fact that MS has a strong lock on the desktop OS market. Anyway, by including an argument to support one side of the issue (however baseless), they blatantly bias the poll toward that opinion.In short, this poll radiates bogusity.
-- WhiskeyJack
You're right, the updates would be the bottleneck of the whoel shebang, not only in the terms of the bandwidth the larger index files would eat, but in terms of processor time on the search servers as they integrate the various index files into one coherent whole.
But here's a thought: How about having the search servers drop out of the cluster to perform updates, therefore dropping the load of fulfilling search requests while in the throes of creating a new index? Admittedly, it doesn't do a whole lot for the bandwidth bottleneck, but it'd make the processor hit a little less severe.
As for passing the indexes, they'd have to be signed for security (don't want spam/pr0n seeding the index), and compressed as far as possible. They'll tend to be pretty hefty regardless of what we do to 'em....but maybe we can get them down small enough to not pose too much of a bandwidth hit, particularly if each search node limits its updates to offpeak hours.
You're right, though: it'll take a lot of doing to get it right. Up for trying? :)
-- WhiskeyJack
What would be more useful is a cluster of machines, each having the whole database.
That was _exactly_ what I was proposing.
Each node indexes a subset of the web. It then passes on its local index to the other nodes that make up the cluster, so that each individual node can accumulate a copy of the master index. Search requests are then routed to the individual nodes based on how many requests each node is currently processing, how quickly they've been responding, etc, so that none of the disparate machines that make up the search cluster get overloaded with requests. And if one of the nodes is slow to respond, the portal could just resend the request to another available node.
Those that didn't want to host requests but still wanted to help with the effort could run spiders that index a small portion of the web and make that index available to the central cluster, thereby distributing the workload further (and allowing sites to index their local networks, forinstance, where they typically have higher speed connections, then dump the resulting index off to the cluster during offpeak hours). This allows local admins to index whatever portions of their site they want as often as they want just by setting up their webserver as an index-only node in the cluster. Get enough sites doing that, and you're going to get pretty up to date results.
The indexes would only get passed on to the nodes that request them...with a little effort, it wouldn't be hard to set up request routes to allow indexes to flow from node to node via the fastest network connections possible, minimizing crosstalk between nodes (you just pass any downstream indexes upstream and vice-versa, adding in your own locally aquired index along the way) -- have the indexes propigate like news articles.
The portal machine would only need to maintain a list of IP addresses weighted according to how big a load each site is willing and able to handle, so its processor load will be minimal. Put a moderate-sized machine on the end of a big network pipe, and a few thousand nodes scattered all over the net, and you might have one nice search engine.
Sorry if my previous post confused you.
-- WhiskeyJack
Sounds liek an idea for an open source project -- a distributed search engine. Each node indexes a small part of the net and shares the results with every node that requests it... then all we need is a few high volume portals to direct requests to the various member nodes (taking into account their relative speed and balancing the load) and we've got one potentially big, reliable, and fast search engine.
Any takers?
-- WhiskeyJack