Would anybody be interested in a pamphlet or booklet to present to their employer explaining ADHD and accommodations in the workplace? As a recipient of state Vocational Rehabilitation services that were a direct result of the severity of my ADHD, I've learned a fair bit about what's allowed and not allowed in terms of discrimination and accommodations. I'd like to author a booklet or something, but I'm not sure if there's actually an audience for it.
That implies that they think adults are going to be suckered by the McDonald's and 99dogs and Clickits and 13 Going On 30 and all the other advertising. Kids below the age of 8 or so don't have the sophistication to distinguish between an ad and content, but adults do.
Now that is something I do agree with, even though I am a fan of There. It's a bit silly that they're charging so much for it when it's down all the time.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Yahoo used to be an excellent resource, until it tried to be all things to all people. I admit that I use a number of the portal services, and it's great having them all centralized so stuff can be shared, but they don't do any of it really well.
I'm also an ODP editor, and have been since nearly the beginning of the project in mid-1998. (My editor profile is readily available - if the server is down there's a less-detailed copy elsewhere.)
I agree with beebware that this will be resolved internally. The Open Directory Project prides itself on being a complete directory - I'm confident that useful listings (such as those about suicide, etc.) won't be lost when illegal sites are removed.
Remember, it's "sites with unlawful content" we're looking at here - unlawful content. As far as I know (and I am not a lawyer), it's perfectly legal to talk about suicide - actually committing suicide is illegal, but you can talk about it all you like. Sites containing child pornography are illegal because the pornography itself is what's illegal. (Of course, this is the way I see it - it's up to the lawyers to decide what actually happens. And I'll keep editing after they do.)
And an important note on the subject of this article: Dmoz is not "aka AOL" at all. It is owned by AOL/Time-Warner, but it's a separate project. Remember that ICQ has also been owned by AOL since June 8, 1998, and even Mozilla - related to Netscape - belongs to AOL. Just because a project is owned by AOL doesn't mean it's "aka AOL" - you got that part all wrong.
It's partly made from animal fat, specifically that scraped from the inside of the hooves of animals who have them -- usually horses. (So marshmallows, Jell-O, and other gelatinous foods aren't vegetarian, though seaweed jello is rather good.)
Re:oneMission.com is a similar directory
on
Who Owns Dmoz?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, it can, but there are a lot more precautions against it. There are also steps you can take to resolve conflicts you might have with another editor.
Having looked at it a bit more, oneMission doesn't seem like that great a directory. It's been around for a while (since at least January 1999), and yet it's tiny with very few links. The signup page states that "links to pages that may be harmful to children or that contain violence of any kind" are forbidden, as are "links to pages that would constitute a violation of any law, regulation, rule or custom" -- yet oneMission is littered with adult links, spam, etc. Maybe if more people participated it would begin to grow into a decent directory, but as it stands now it's just crap.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am an ODP editor, but any opinions above are mine alone.
Re:oneMission.com is a similar directory
on
Who Owns Dmoz?
·
· Score: 1
> And you can edit page descriptions whereever you like.
Forgive me, but that just sounds scary. What if I edit the Suburban Yeti category, and I've done a really good job with it, and somebody who knows nothing about any Yetis, or just Rural ones, comes and messes up my stuff? What do you do about it?
Also, I'm curious how you can make the statement that oneMission is "...the first grass-roots, from-the-bottom-up directory on the web." Wouldn't that be Yahoo!, or perhaps dmoz? Or hell, any one of a number of directories that I'm sure existed well before the web went commercial and everyone got on it.
Re:DMOZ changed completely when AOL took over
on
Who Owns Dmoz?
·
· Score: 1
I'm just curious to know why you call it "AOL/dmoz" -- how can you tell AOL had anything to do with it, or for that matter still does? I've been an editor since the NewHoo days, and I still can't tell AOL owns dmoz. It's very obvious that Netscape owns dmoz, and it's true that AOL owns Netscape, but AOL doesn't own dmoz directly -- so I wonder why you call it that.
If you trace it back all the way, yes, AOL/Time-Warner does own dmoz. The project is actually owned by Netscape, which in turn is owned by AOL/Time-Warner. But don't forget, AOL/Time-Warner also owns ICQ and a helluva lot of other things. Some people who are already editors have expressed dismay upon realizing that they are -- as they put it -- "working for the man" but the majority of editors are working for the good of the project. (And yes, I am a dmoz editor.)
Slashdot Mirror
Would anybody be interested in a pamphlet or booklet to present to their employer explaining ADHD and accommodations in the workplace? As a recipient of state Vocational Rehabilitation services that were a direct result of the severity of my ADHD, I've learned a fair bit about what's allowed and not allowed in terms of discrimination and accommodations. I'd like to author a booklet or something, but I'm not sure if there's actually an audience for it.
That implies that they think adults are going to be suckered by the McDonald's and 99dogs and Clickits and 13 Going On 30 and all the other advertising. Kids below the age of 8 or so don't have the sophistication to distinguish between an ad and content, but adults do.
Actually, Neopets was originally designed for college students. It's oriented to young children NOW, but it used to be for big kids.
Now that is something I do agree with, even though I am a fan of There. It's a bit silly that they're charging so much for it when it's down all the time.
Fakesters argue the full potential of the site is being stifled?
How, exactly, does a profile for Princess Diana enhance Friendster's potential?
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Yahoo used to be an excellent resource, until it tried to be all things to all people. I admit that I use a number of the portal services, and it's great having them all centralized so stuff can be shared, but they don't do any of it really well.
I agree with beebware that this will be resolved internally. The Open Directory Project prides itself on being a complete directory - I'm confident that useful listings (such as those about suicide, etc.) won't be lost when illegal sites are removed.
Remember, it's "sites with unlawful content" we're looking at here - unlawful content. As far as I know (and I am not a lawyer), it's perfectly legal to talk about suicide - actually committing suicide is illegal, but you can talk about it all you like. Sites containing child pornography are illegal because the pornography itself is what's illegal. (Of course, this is the way I see it - it's up to the lawyers to decide what actually happens. And I'll keep editing after they do.)
And an important note on the subject of this article: Dmoz is not "aka AOL" at all. It is owned by AOL/Time-Warner, but it's a separate project. Remember that ICQ has also been owned by AOL since June 8, 1998, and even Mozilla - related to Netscape - belongs to AOL. Just because a project is owned by AOL doesn't mean it's "aka AOL" - you got that part all wrong.
It's partly made from animal fat, specifically that scraped from the inside of the hooves of animals who have them -- usually horses. (So marshmallows, Jell-O, and other gelatinous foods aren't vegetarian, though seaweed jello is rather good.)
Having looked at it a bit more, oneMission doesn't seem like that great a directory. It's been around for a while (since at least January 1999), and yet it's tiny with very few links. The signup page states that "links to pages that may be harmful to children or that contain violence of any kind" are forbidden, as are "links to pages that would constitute a violation of any law, regulation, rule or custom" -- yet oneMission is littered with adult links, spam, etc. Maybe if more people participated it would begin to grow into a decent directory, but as it stands now it's just crap.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am an ODP editor, but any opinions above are mine alone.
Forgive me, but that just sounds scary. What if I edit the Suburban Yeti category, and I've done a really good job with it, and somebody who knows nothing about any Yetis, or just Rural ones, comes and messes up my stuff? What do you do about it?
Also, I'm curious how you can make the statement that oneMission is "...the first grass-roots, from-the-bottom-up directory on the web." Wouldn't that be Yahoo!, or perhaps dmoz? Or hell, any one of a number of directories that I'm sure existed well before the web went commercial and everyone got on it.
I'm just curious to know why you call it "AOL/dmoz" -- how can you tell AOL had anything to do with it, or for that matter still does? I've been an editor since the NewHoo days, and I still can't tell AOL owns dmoz. It's very obvious that Netscape owns dmoz, and it's true that AOL owns Netscape, but AOL doesn't own dmoz directly -- so I wonder why you call it that.
If you trace it back all the way, yes, AOL/Time-Warner does own dmoz. The project is actually owned by Netscape, which in turn is owned by AOL/Time-Warner. But don't forget, AOL/Time-Warner also owns ICQ and a helluva lot of other things. Some people who are already editors have expressed dismay upon realizing that they are -- as they put it -- "working for the man" but the majority of editors are working for the good of the project. (And yes, I am a dmoz editor.)