If stupid cases like this get the default changed, then it becomes useful and necessary.
Plus perhaps a site where the webmaster as explicitly said WELCOME might get priority over those that don't, because the site is clueful enough to know those tags and nice enough to openly welcome search engines, instead of possibly merely tolerating them by default.
> good business plans, people who understood cash flow and customers and marketing -- but the product was crap, or already obsolete, or simply a non-starter
Sound like Microsoft and Windows and it works for them!
> But the benefits (I'm happy and I earn a pile of cash for doing what I do) by far outweigh the downsides. >... > Where do you make the cut? It's a tough call.
Perhaps you have the answer right there.
If a person can be happy and successful then let them be. If not, then help them.
Agreed. I also try to avoid these sites by adding -noarchive, -nosnippet to my search terms, but that doesn't work (it appears to be ignored), it would be nice if that worked and could ven be made the default.
Screw the noarchive/nosnippet sites.
I explicitly add index,follow,archive (and will add snippet) to my pages just to make sure things get archived, indexed, etc (and have been doing so for quite a while).
NOARCHIVE stops caching NOSNIPPET stops even the little snippet on the search page.
If you tell Google NO with these tags, Google will respect it. Thus no infringement - isn't it a part of civil law that a would be plaintiff needs to do something to prevent the harm - e.g. if my car has an oil leak due to a defect and I deliberately wait until the engine seizes, I can't collect damages for that.
I wish I could tell Google to ignore pages with nosnippet and noarchive so I don't get those cloaked pages that contain my term, but when I get there it is just a demand for subscription, and no article and the cache was turned off with those directives, to "tease" one into visiting the site.
In a near perfect world Google would just delist any site that doesn't give it archive privilege, but I'd settle for being able to set my search defaults to ignore noarchive sites. They want to play games, to hell with them.
And every site that does the cloaking I mentioned above is in violation of Google rules and I report them.
People who care about compatibility, who realize packet sniffing attacks aren't as big a deal (internal network sniffing means internal threats, who could steal your computers, attack you, etc just as well or sniffing on the big Internel routers - very hard - think NSA, FBI, CIA, etc who could also more easily put bugs in your office, arrest you or assassinate you) as server software bugs (which this bug is), people who realize there are telnet servers and clients which support telnet authenticate and encrypt options, and people who don't like ssh's short comings (missing from a lot of systems, extra hassle, no flexibility such as that provided by telnet's options and negotiate protocol).
Passwords in the clear isn't as a big a deal as you think.
Risks of interception on your internal network exist, but you should have trustworthy employees. Otherwise they could just STEAL your computers, or kill you, or whatever. Telnet is the LEAST of your problems.
What percentage of bugs are due to 1) Packet interception between 2 networks? (very very few) 2) Due to bugs in server software? (most)
If the FBI, NSA, or CIA is packet sniffing the backbone to get at your traffic, you have much worse problems. Since they can put a camera in your office or house, arrest you or assassinate you just as easy (actually, MUCH easier, trying to stiff terabit backbone links is extremely hard even for a motivated and powerful attacker - who has other means to deal with you).
Slashdot Mirror
And in our next story, users get sued and prosecuted and are assessed millions in damages and sentenced to 5 years by the courts for DMCA violations.
We like our American neighbors -- we might not be able to handle your politicians...
:)
Most of us down here can't stand them either.
Please let some of THEM into Canada. We'll pay you a few billion, since we'd likely save much more than that in taxes when they are gone.
Currently redundant, but harmless.
If stupid cases like this get the default changed, then it becomes useful and necessary.
Plus perhaps a site where the webmaster as explicitly said WELCOME might get priority over those that don't, because the site is clueful enough to know those tags and nice enough to openly welcome search engines, instead of possibly merely tolerating them by default.
> good business plans, people who understood cash flow and customers and marketing -- but the product was crap, or already obsolete, or simply a non-starter
Sound like Microsoft and Windows and it works for them!
Use Go Daddy.
> and no one feels the least bit bad about expunging a tapeworm from the body.
:)
Those size 0 Hollywood celebrities would; they want to stay that small.
> But the benefits (I'm happy and I earn a pile of cash for doing what I do) by far outweigh the downsides. ...
>
> Where do you make the cut? It's a tough call.
Perhaps you have the answer right there.
If a person can be happy and successful then let them be.
If not, then help them.
Sounds like the $699 SCO Linux licenses.
If so, I hope you like it HOT.
An eternity at 235F (molten sulphur) doesn't sound fun.
That's almost as hot as an Intel chip!
Don't be dense.
NOARCHIVE/NOSNIPPET meta tags and robots.txt files are established standards.
What's really funny is in that list, one of only 2 ties is between the US and Belgium! Isn't that ironic, don'tcha think.
They can use NOARCHIVE and NOSNIPPET.
The US DMCA under Clinton in 1998 is a part of it too.
Agreed. I also try to avoid these sites by adding -noarchive, -nosnippet to my search terms, but that doesn't work (it appears to be ignored), it would be nice if that worked and could ven be made the default.
Screw the noarchive/nosnippet sites.
I explicitly add index,follow,archive (and will add snippet) to my pages just to make sure things get archived, indexed, etc (and have been doing so for quite a while).
It doesn't deprive anybody of the "stolen" content.
NOARCHIVE stops caching
NOSNIPPET stops even the little snippet on the search page.
If you tell Google NO with these tags, Google will respect it.
Thus no infringement - isn't it a part of civil law that a would be plaintiff needs to do something to prevent the harm - e.g. if my car has an oil leak due to a defect and I deliberately wait until the engine seizes, I can't collect damages for that.
I wish I could tell Google to ignore pages with nosnippet and noarchive so I don't get those cloaked pages that contain my term, but when I get there it is just a demand for subscription, and no article and the cache was turned off with those directives, to "tease" one into visiting the site.
In a near perfect world Google would just delist any site that doesn't give it archive privilege, but I'd settle for being able to set my search defaults to ignore noarchive sites. They want to play games, to hell with them.
And every site that does the cloaking I mentioned above is in violation of Google rules and I report them.
Terrorism, the obesity epidemic and illegal drugs.
(or school shootings, or mad cow disease, or bird flu).
How about, a Diebold killed our democracy.
(unfortunately it won't be funny if we let it happen)
The kids rule in public schools - they have most of the firepower.
People who care about compatibility, who realize packet sniffing attacks aren't as big a deal (internal network sniffing means internal threats, who could steal your computers, attack you, etc just as well or sniffing on the big Internel routers - very hard - think NSA, FBI, CIA, etc who could also more easily put bugs in your office, arrest you or assassinate you) as server software bugs (which this bug is), people who realize there are telnet servers and clients which support telnet authenticate and encrypt options, and people who don't like ssh's short comings (missing from a lot of systems, extra hassle, no flexibility such as that provided by telnet's options and negotiate protocol).
Passwords in the clear isn't as a big a deal as you think.
Risks of interception on your internal network exist, but you should have trustworthy employees. Otherwise they could just STEAL your computers, or kill you, or whatever. Telnet is the LEAST of your problems.
What percentage of bugs are due to
1) Packet interception between 2 networks? (very very few)
2) Due to bugs in server software? (most)
If the FBI, NSA, or CIA is packet sniffing the backbone to get at your traffic, you have much worse problems. Since they can put a camera in your office or house, arrest you or assassinate you just as easy (actually, MUCH easier, trying to stiff terabit backbone links is extremely hard even for a motivated and powerful attacker - who has other means to deal with you).
Umm Google uses Linux which is open source.
What the hell?!
Umm UDP is still available, with all its glorious limitations!
In the US, truth is an absolute defense to libel and slander.
The law was supposedly meant to mean it would "can" (get rid of) spam.
:)
Instead, it keeps spam legal with some restrictions, and supersedes state laws making some formerly illegal spam legal.
So it makes it so you "CAN SPAM" legally and how to do it.