Using Google Groups and complaining about the spam is pointless.
If you use a non-Google NNTP server, you don't see the spam, or very little of it.
The requirement to have an account and be a member of a Google Group before complaining about spam in that group is perfectly reasonable.
If you don't have an account or are not joined to that group, why do you care about it?
If you're using a non-Google Usenet provider, and seeing Google spam, then complain to that provider; they should be able to filter it out.
I use a killfile to drop anything with a Google Groups message ID. If such a posting generates an interesting thread, then I can reveal the posting by chasing the parent references back to it.
Scrapers who are able to get a high search engine ranking have a reduced incentive for using AdWords.
Google's AdWords business depends on the quality of the search engine from several angles. A good search engine attracts searchers, and discourages the profit-motivated keyword stuffers, forcing them to use the paid channel. (Which they will want to do, even if reluctantly, if the search engine is popular!)
Google used to be good.
Now people keep using Google only because of its past reputation: because google has become a verb synonymous with searching the web. Many people don't even know that Google wasn't the first search engine or that there are others.
But Google knows very well that you can only ride on your brand for so long.
I think one thing they need to do is to listen to webmasters more and find some way to become more responsive to active spam reports, without consuming too many resources or opening/that/ system to abuse.
The images projected on your eyes' retinas, whether from a real scene or images, are 2D. So "technical" 3D is just as real as "real" 3D. It is generated from real 3D data. 3D cameras capture a real scene. 3D computer graphics captures objects which are mathematically 3D. All that is lacking in generated 3D is what is lacking in 2D pictures: focal depth.
Assuming they can actually go 52 miles at the top speed of 62 mph, this means the buses can keep moving for about 50 minutes, and then they need to spend 30 minutes recharging. So it effectively takes 80 minutes to go 52 miles, under the assumption of fast driving on the freeway with no stops, which translates to a speed of 40 mph.
In a long distance race, anything which can average more than 40 mph will beat these buses.
Or at least, there must be laws in place which require vendors to make it clear that locked hardware which only accepts signed code is not being sold, but rented.
I.e. the unit is a rental platform, owned by the vendor, for the purpose of purveying content under the control of that vendor.
Once you sell (actually sell, not rent) a piece of hardware, you cannot control what software goes on it.
The locked model is fine, but it's outside of the ethical definition of what it means to sell something. It's a different type of agreement from a sale agreement.
Rickrolling is more of a trick, where the surfer is expecting one thing but is taken somewhere else. For instance, a link to "watch a video of my puppy chasing after a ball", actually takes you to "two girls, one cup".
But I'm talking more about the kind of deception which hurts the target site by stealing content and bandwidth.
The web surfer in this situation is not surprised at all, but rather quite unaware (unless he looks closely at the URL's, and perhaps not even then).
Linking is the equivalent to pointing and shouting "Oh look, a deer!" in the real world.
Go learn HTML 101. There are forms of linking which look exactly like copying.
Why don't you put some pictures on your web server?
I will put up some IMG objects on my site, and point the SRC= attribute to your server, then add text saying that these are my images.
Or how about I target an anchor, using your web page, to a frame inside my page? Look ma, no scroll bars or any kind of border or indication that this area of the screen is not my website but someone else's!
There are all kinds of web sites out there whose operators scrape content, and steal bandwidth, creating the appearance that they created the content and are hosting all the images and other download materials themselves.
This is usually done to try to boost search engine rankings, to bring traffic to other content.
Such practices should be illegal.
It should only be fair use to make this kind of link:
<a href="target site">honest text</a>
It should be obvious to the end user that this is a hyperlink, and the text should make it clear that the user is navigating to someone else's site. An optional nofollow would be allowed, but no other attributes.
Any other form of linking (such as targetting a page into a frame or iframe, or using tags sourced from another site) should require the permission of the target site in order to be legal.
The difference between linking and embedding can't be defined by the underlying technology, but by how it looks. Is there an intent to deceive? If it looks like copying is going on then it must be considered that way.
Saying "I can't devote time to analyzing your proof because you're not a well-established mathematician" isn't the same thing as saying "your proof is wrong". It's not even the same thing as saying "your proof is probably wrong", and it's certainly not the same as "if you were a well-established mathematician, I would accept most of your proof without understanding it".
I understand where you're coming from, but for many philosophers, what they're doing is not just trying create a practical solution to a problem, but describe reality.
No, they are just constructing their own reality and then trying to argue that the real reality corresponds to their reality.
It's sort of like science, minus the rigor of putting anything into numbers and verifying it.
Mathematics is the foundation for philosophy, not technocracy. What a better world we'd be in if we were motivated by the former rather than pursuing the latter.
Yeah, right! We'd be shivering in caves, and dying before age 35 with rotten teeth.
Mathematics is precise, so how can it it be regarded as the foundation of hogwash?
In mathematics, you can prove an absolute truth. In philosophy, you deny that there is such a thing.
Anyway, has anyone read Lewis' article in its entirety? Loooooong winded drivel. I can't get through a paragraph of it.
Your example doesn't hold, because you can sell aftermarket parts that fit Ford Mustangs.
Of course it would be fraud if you claimed if those were Ford factory parts.
But nobody is trying to claim that some sex game came from Microsoft.
This is about Microsoft wanting to own the platform after they sold it to you.
If User A and User B both own instances of the same platform, A should be able to develop something that B is interested in, without some meddling third party dictating what that should be.
``B can get the tools and make it himself''' is not a rational argument. What A and B cannot do is engage in trade with regard to the platform.
How hardware works isn't computer science, but even hardware obeys algorithms, at a higher levels of abstraction, where we are no longer dealing with voltage levels and timing diagrams.
How the OS works is all algorithms, if you describe it to the proper level of detail. Memory management in the OS is algorithms. Scheduling is algorithms. Managing the transmit and receive rings of a network adapter is algorithms. The TCP/IP stack is algorithms.
Control is a constant. If you deny it here, you grant it here.
How can the government prevent the corporations who own these networks from having control, other than by seizing that control for itself?
Remember, the government is not a person. It's just an instrument for controlling the use of force by the collective. Net neutrality means that the collective mob has used the force of government as an instrument to gain control over other privately owned networks.
The corporations who own the networks *should* have control. It's private property. Every packet traversing their infrastructure is a guest.
Users should be able to pay for preferential treatment: bandwidth on demand, content delivery, etc.
No business should be forced to host someone who is detrimental to that business. If I run Acme ISP, and you use my network to put an anti-ACME-ISP website, it's my right to kick you off my property by shutting you down. This is not censorship. Censorship would be if the state prevented you from hosting that website anywhere (and that is exactly the sort of thing that will exist under net neutrality!)
Net neutrality is not the work of liberals, but conservatives, who ultimately want to censor content. It's only sold to the naive, greedy, socialist-leaning people as "equal access for all".
Slashdot Mirror
Using Google Groups and complaining about the spam is pointless.
If you use a non-Google NNTP server, you don't see the spam, or very little of it.
The requirement to have an account and be a member of a Google Group before complaining about spam in that group is perfectly reasonable.
If you don't have an account or are not joined to that group, why do you care about it?
If you're using a non-Google Usenet provider, and seeing Google spam, then complain to that provider; they should be able to filter it out.
I use a killfile to drop anything with a Google Groups message ID. If such a posting generates an interesting thread, then I can reveal the posting by chasing the parent references back to it.
Scrapers who are able to get a high search engine ranking have a reduced incentive for using AdWords.
Google's AdWords business depends on the quality of the search engine from several angles. A good search engine attracts searchers, and discourages the profit-motivated keyword stuffers, forcing them to use the paid channel. (Which they will want to do, even if reluctantly, if the search engine is popular!)
Google used to be good.
Now people keep using Google only because of its past reputation: because google has become a verb synonymous with searching the web. Many people don't even know that Google wasn't the first search engine or that there are others.
But Google knows very well that you can only ride on your brand for so long.
I think one thing they need to do is to listen to webmasters more and find some way to become more responsive to active spam reports, without consuming too many resources or opening /that/ system to abuse.
Surgeons have the permission to operate, which is based on trust.
A person has the right to acquire the skills to become a surgeon; by doing so, he does not acquire the right to operate on anyone.
Here in Canada, depending on the province, you are automatically presumed guilty of DUI if you refuse the breath test.
(it's theft even though the copyright holder never had the money in their possession anyway).
When a thief takes goods from a store, the store also never has the thief's money in its possession.
If the program isn't modified in any way, it's not counterfeit. The problem that someone wasn't compensated for the copy isn't counterfeting.
A counterfeit coin or paper bill actually has no value (unless the copy is so perfect, that nobody can tell!)
A pirated program has value, because it runs.
2D images have all other depth cues, which are inconsistent with focal depth.
This hypothesis is very weak.
The images projected on your eyes' retinas, whether from a real scene or images, are 2D. So "technical" 3D is just as real as "real" 3D. It is generated from real 3D data. 3D cameras capture a real scene. 3D computer graphics captures objects which are mathematically 3D. All that is lacking in generated 3D is what is lacking in 2D pictures: focal depth.
2D images also lack focal depth, so let's not give books to the six and under crowds.
They have nothing to lose by disrecommending games for small children under six, because those kids are growing up fast.
If 3D games were found to harm people's vision at any age, you can bet they would cover that up.
Reality delivers different left and right images. So reality must be bad for visual development also.
Assuming they can actually go 52 miles at the top speed of 62 mph, this means the buses can keep moving for about 50 minutes, and then they need to spend 30 minutes recharging. So it effectively takes 80 minutes to go 52 miles, under the assumption of fast driving on the freeway with no stops, which translates to a speed of 40 mph.
In a long distance race, anything which can average more than 40 mph will beat these buses.
Or at least, there must be laws in place which require vendors to make it clear that locked hardware which only accepts signed code is not being sold, but rented.
I.e. the unit is a rental platform, owned by the vendor, for the purpose of purveying content under the control of that vendor.
Once you sell (actually sell, not rent) a piece of hardware, you cannot control what software goes on it.
The locked model is fine, but it's outside of the ethical definition of what it means to sell something. It's a different type of agreement from a sale agreement.
Rickrolling is more of a trick, where the surfer is expecting one thing but is taken somewhere else. For instance, a link to "watch a video of my puppy chasing after a ball", actually takes you to "two girls, one cup".
But I'm talking more about the kind of deception which hurts the target site by stealing content and bandwidth.
The web surfer in this situation is not surprised at all, but rather quite unaware (unless he looks closely at the URL's, and perhaps not even then).
Linking is the equivalent to pointing and shouting "Oh look, a deer!" in the real world.
Go learn HTML 101. There are forms of linking which look exactly like copying.
Why don't you put some pictures on your web server?
I will put up some IMG objects on my site, and point the SRC= attribute to your server, then add text saying that these are my images.
Or how about I target an anchor, using your web page, to a frame inside my page? Look ma, no scroll bars or any kind of border or indication that this area of the screen is not my website but someone else's!
"Oh look, a moron".
I'm all for laws which ban deceptive linking.
There are all kinds of web sites out there whose operators scrape content, and steal bandwidth, creating the appearance that they created the content and are hosting all the images and other download materials themselves.
This is usually done to try to boost search engine rankings, to bring traffic to other content.
Such practices should be illegal.
It should only be fair use to make this kind of link:
<a href="target site">honest text</a>
It should be obvious to the end user that this is a hyperlink, and the text should make it clear that the user is navigating to someone else's site. An optional nofollow would be allowed, but no other attributes.
Any other form of linking (such as targetting a page into a frame or iframe, or using tags sourced from another site) should require the permission of the target site in order to be legal.
The difference between linking and embedding can't be defined by the underlying technology, but by how it looks. Is there an intent to deceive? If it looks like copying is going on then it must be considered that way.
No thanks, I'm waiting for CC.
I remember seeing Linux running on Netwinders sometime around 1998.
Saying "I can't devote time to analyzing your proof because you're not a well-established mathematician" isn't the same thing as saying "your proof is wrong". It's not even the same thing as saying "your proof is probably wrong", and it's certainly not the same as "if you were a well-established mathematician, I would accept most of your proof without understanding it".
I understand where you're coming from, but for many philosophers, what they're doing is not just trying create a practical solution to a problem, but describe reality.
No, they are just constructing their own reality and then trying to argue that the real reality corresponds to their reality.
It's sort of like science, minus the rigor of putting anything into numbers and verifying it.
Mathematics is the foundation for philosophy, not technocracy. What a better world we'd be in if we were motivated by the former rather than pursuing the latter.
Yeah, right! We'd be shivering in caves, and dying before age 35 with rotten teeth.
Mathematics is precise, so how can it it be regarded as the foundation of hogwash?
In mathematics, you can prove an absolute truth. In philosophy, you deny that there is such a thing.
Anyway, has anyone read Lewis' article in its entirety? Loooooong winded drivel. I can't get through a paragraph of it.
Your example doesn't hold, because you can sell aftermarket parts that fit Ford Mustangs.
Of course it would be fraud if you claimed if those were Ford factory parts.
But nobody is trying to claim that some sex game came from Microsoft.
This is about Microsoft wanting to own the platform after they sold it to you.
If User A and User B both own instances of the same platform, A should be able to develop something that B is interested in, without some meddling third party dictating what that should be.
``B can get the tools and make it himself''' is not a rational argument. What A and B cannot do is engage in trade with regard to the platform.
Essentially, they are renters, and not owners.
How hardware works isn't computer science, but even hardware obeys algorithms, at a higher levels of abstraction, where we are no longer dealing with voltage levels and timing diagrams.
How the OS works is all algorithms, if you describe it to the proper level of detail. Memory management in the OS is algorithms. Scheduling is algorithms. Managing the transmit and receive rings of a network adapter is algorithms. The TCP/IP stack is algorithms.
Come on.
Control is a constant. If you deny it here, you grant it here.
How can the government prevent the corporations who own these networks from having control, other than by seizing that control for itself?
Remember, the government is not a person. It's just an instrument for controlling the use of force by the collective. Net neutrality means that the collective mob has used the force of government as an instrument to gain control over other privately owned networks.
The corporations who own the networks *should* have control. It's private property. Every packet traversing their infrastructure is a guest.
Users should be able to pay for preferential treatment: bandwidth on demand, content delivery, etc.
No business should be forced to host someone who is detrimental to that business. If I run Acme ISP, and you use my network to put an anti-ACME-ISP website, it's my right to kick you off my property by shutting you down. This is not censorship. Censorship would be if the state prevented you from hosting that website anywhere (and that is exactly the sort of thing that will exist under net neutrality!)
Net neutrality is not the work of liberals, but conservatives, who ultimately want to censor content. It's only sold to the naive, greedy, socialist-leaning people as "equal access for all".
Unwise men bearing Franken-nonsense.