Did an informal office survey (about 10 people) since my original post. Instead of asking for a person, I asked about the most significant event, with the follow up question, who deserves the most credit for the event and how it turned out or will turn out.
Kosovo was highest on the list, however more people give credit to Clinton and Albright than for those members of the military(s) who planned and fulfilled the missions, and none at all for K4 -- who has the more difficult job of building the peace.
So this post is kindof a personal protest on behalf of those who are on the front lines.
And while some may mock my belief(s) in God, please know that I mean it when it when I borrow and change a quote from Tiny Tim (in Dicken's "A Christmas Carol", not the singer) and say "God bless them, one and all."
Is for the troops of K4 in Kosovo and the other peacekeeping forces deployed world-wide, under the concept that "peace on earth, good will towards men..." is an idea that these men and women believe in strongly enough to be out there, putting their lives on the line every day.
I don't know if it's in the book or not. However, recent theorists figured it out....;^)
Ya'see, Rudolph is actually carrying the highly advanced tech required to make the whole Christmas delivery thing work. The light from his nose is actually the doppler shifted reflection of a minituarized ST:NG Impulse engine. The Sleigh is carrying a minituarized Warp Generator which, when in use, causes the sleigh to appear as a shooting star or a twinkle (depending on viewing angle). Claus uses the Picard manuever to be in several places at once, and, as demand for his services has grown, has taken to using a holodeck projected image of himself and molecular transporters to get the work done.
The cookies, etc. are then transported back to the workshop and converted to their constituent elements for use in next year's toys.
Geez, don't they teach elementary (ST:NG) 24th century physics around here anymore?
Great logic in your post. Unfortunately, I don't think that they support your subject assertion, because they do not take into account that some data driven sites are not just "newsy" -- they try to present content in a clear, cohesive manner, using a database to do so. In these cases, the pages are somewhat static, but is more like a catalog which keeps growing.
The best example I can think of is genealogy sites -- as data gets added, it gets put into a hierarchy, but doesn't change much thereafter. Using this example, I may want to find (via a search engine) references to the Wallace B. XYZ family genealogy. Perhaps I contribute a new "branch" to the tree -- is this spam? No, it's information which other genealogical researches may need to be able to find.
I don't think that the 'Net is becoming unsearchable, I think there is no standardization in how to write and/or search a data driven site. When I code a database driven site, for example, I include code which automatically writes the new meta tag information for the content page, and then I submit the new pages to as many engines as I can. But I don't know of any way to automatically get the big sites to delete my old pages and replace them with the new -- the timing of the site submissions appearing in the search engine directories has been highly unpredictable to say the least.
What I try to prevent is the problem I am going to mention next, which is that it seems like with many data driven sites, the content pages "expire" (i.e., they are aged out of the database -- thus disappearing from the site) without any notification to the search engines that the page is expired.
As an example, I use a product which performs queries against 10-12 search engines at the same time. For any given search, 10% or more of the pages will be invalid. What little research I have done into the invalid sites often shows that the page has been dead for more than a year -- even when 8 or more of the search engines advertise that they have (at least in theory) spidered the page within the last 60 days.
What we have here is a problem in search of a standards based solution (an official RFC) designed to bring order out of the chaos.
My own thought (which I acknowledge are from someone who has been doing data driven sites for less than a year) is that there ought to be a standard way of telling an external spider to use a "site local" index file, similar to how the robots.txt file excludes some or all of a site from spidering (assuming the spider's coders obey the standards -- not all do.)
It then becomes the data-driven site's coders responsibility to add the added code which updates the robot's index file "automagically" based on the content changes to the site.
It also seems to me like browsers could access this file to see if a bookmark is still active, and with the proper format, maybe even update the local bookmark file. Something like this:
I think you're right -- that would probably work. If I'm understanding you right, the spider would be return two lists, the "intra-site" links and the extra-site links, the server/servers storing the data would only have to check the "outside links".
Would this work for database driven sites as well?
I'm wondering if this would be THE weak link in this idea. It seems to me that with the speed that the spidering engines works, you'd need a huge amount of processors at the "server" level just to eliminate the doubles. I use a freeware tool which collects data from 10-12 different search engines and attempts to eliminate the duplicates, only to get the same page numerous times from different sourced origin points, not even counting sites which are mirrored.
Any thoughts out there on how to solve this problem?
Well, as someone who has been following the/. code base (including several mail groups and derivative versions of the/. engine), I can tell you that most of your assumptions about the/. code are false.
First of all, the code running/. today is not a year older than the 0.3 preball, or the 0.2 code. The code page itself mentions that both are somewhat orphans as the code now in use is more like a 0.4 release.
From what I understand, Rob Malda is now not the only coder working on the site -- supposedly andover.net has made it so possible for there to be three coders actively working to improve the/. engine.
In the mean time, I know that Malda is seriously sick of all the whining about the "where's the code????" because he posts occasionally to one of the mail groups and said something to the effect that "every time someone whines about the code, he wants to delay the release one day more." [Rob -- feel free to correct me here...]
I do feel that maybe the folks at/. and Andover should post a story which updates us all on the status of the newer code, and will probably e-mail Rob with a request to do so.
In the mean time, what I notice is that the response time is quicker, more stories are being posted, yes --some mistakes are being made, (and quickly apologized for), and it feels to me like things are becoming fun for Malda & co. again. (For a while they were burning the 70 hr a week candle, and just barely surviving monetarily).
Just my $.02 worth, with feedback always appreciated.
Part of what is not mentioned in any of these articles is that the former head of Java development at IBM (Patricia Sueltz) was lured to Sun towards the end of the summer and is now in charge of the Java effort there. While the article which announced the change emphasizes her wide view of Java and desire to keep Java unified, it remained to be seen whether this was lip service or not.
My thoughts are that Pat Sueltz did enough good for Java while at IBM that she ought to be amenable and keep a listening ear for response from those of us who count ourselves as "individual" (vs. corporate) members of the Java Community. Feel free to use this link to the java.sun.com feedback page, but please, be polite. Turning the wrath of/. on any company via their provided feedback mechanism(s) has bad karma, and a few well thought out, reasonable responses will get more attention that a thousand flame messages.
Okay, so CNN says that some of the major MP3 sites are playing "screw the artists". I for one am not surprised, because when someone involved in marketing uses the word "free", 99.9% of the time, it's a lie designed to pay the marketer, or the company the marketer works for.
However, there's a major difference between the freedom offered by the MP3 format, and that of "free exposure" as offered by many MP3 sites. Which is that because of the ubiquitous nature of the Internet, there can never be the near monopoly power that the record companies have managed to pull off in the retail CD market. If the major sites work against the artists, those artists will move their music elsewhere, to sites which truly respect and take care of (financially and otherwise) their talent base. MP3 can't market 26,000 new artists -- so why in the heck do they sign them up with such horrendous contracts?
Well, dad's old rules apply: (#1) don't expect to get something for nothing, and (#2) read the fine print before you sign your name. Then walk away and think about what you read, and finally, if in doubt in reference to #2, consult someone who can help.
Good point. I hadn't thought about moving the "viewpoint" around. In a similar vein, I could also balance the sound to make up for any particular tonal deficits (ranges of notes where my hearing isn't as good).
That said, using all that data space for separate sound tracks would be extremely storage intensive, something I didn't think about yesterday. BTW, both of the above items can be done fairly well with the standard controls on a good stereo and/or surround system, as long as it is equipped with a good multiband equalizer.
Another Katz hater... Hmmm... Wonder if this one got his facts right... as usual, no. However, even as I start out, I acknowledge that we can disagree about anything here on/., that's the good thing about this site.
--flamethrower on --
May I suggest you a). take time to think about what Katz is trying to say, and b). post a more coherent, well thought out response, with specific disagreements and reasonings, I'd have more respect. As it is, Katz gets my vote.
Having read some of Jon's books now, I'd hesitate to accuse him of "just being a reporter stating the obvious". You might consider the term "essayist", because AFAICT, reporters tell what happened, essayists try to draw out the deeper meaning of what is happening and why. Consider:
The fact is Jon stood up --via Slashdot for what he saw as a huge injustice -- the bias against those who are "outside" the group norms -- in his/. essays Voices from the Hellmouth, More Stories from the Hellmouth or The Price of Being Different. Were he a crummy reporter, he would have been saying the same b---s--- things most of the media said about "goths, punks, etc." No evidence to me that he's saying that there is a "widespread conspiracy against nerds and the net", as you put it.
Contrary to your opinion that Katz is "trying to conform to what he thinks your ideals are", I find a strong consistency in what he writes, a view of how the 'Net is changing the balances of power. Remember folks, at one time this man was right at the heart of what is sometimes called the "media elite", and essentially walked away from it. So he knows of what he speaks.
You said, "Hell he even claims to be a nerd himself". Actually, when you read about Jon's attempts to get a Linux box running, you realize that Jon is a laughable failure on the nerd/geek scale. Good techno-savvy user at best. But that's okay, because he uses the three pound computer between his ears really well, and connects them to a heart and a mind and puts it all out there for us to rant and rave about.
Again I quote: "One thing I find extremely insulting is Katz' use of the term "yuppie" and the fact that he even suggests that rioting idiots should be tolerated or even have a right to do what they did." Actually, my sense is Katz drew a clear line between the protesters and the troublemakers, that he was saying because of the actions of a few idiots, entire crowds of people were essentially attacked by the police. Which mirrors the web based news reports and posts I've followed. So the media interviews the troublemakers -- that's the crappy journalist's way out.
As for Katz and his "corporatism vs. the individual" battle, he should love corporations! Its the reason he has a job! Hmmm. Your worst thought out point yet. Katz doesn't get paid to write articles for/., and/. is as much a slap in the face of corporate America as anything. Up until recently/. was essentially three college students doing it all. With Andover.Net, the staff is bigger, but big corporations?? Not Quite.
--Flamethrower off--
Funny thing is, I don't always agree with that Jon Katz has to say. But I admire him (and/.) for the fact he's willing to put his thoughts to the web for us to think, rant, rave, and flame about.
If there are, they'll be dead meat following the first lawsuit which tags them. Even in the initial Netscape spec, they specifically caution against using cookies to do anything much more than identifying a computer to a server, the same way/. knows "who I am" by reading an ID off of the hard drive where I am viewing the pages.
In relation to using personal information on the net (including my e-mail address, you may notice that I did not "anti-spam" my e-mail address here on/. However, I only use that e-mail address in conjunction with a few sites, limiting the number of points from which my personal information can be derived to those sites with privacy policies that are up to spec, saving my regular e-mail address only being given to a much more private and personalized list of people that I am willing to receive information from. That way if there is a security problem, I know where it originated by my email address. Similarly, when I write software that uses cookies, I don't put any personal information in it. All of that type of information can and should only be kept in a back end database, well shielded from crackers, etc. For example, on one e-commerce site I designed, the cookie "knew" who you were, but in order to place a credit card order, you had to validate certain information within an encrypted page, even though the user had already "registered" their information (including the c.c. #) into the database via the web. We also included a fraud detection program designed to stop the c.c. # generators from ever being able to spoof an order. And folks, it just wasn't that hard to do!!
I agree with previous posters. The Novell CEO was trying to sell proprietary software, and claiming to have been attacked by the "poison cookie" monster in order to do so.
AFAICT, that wouldn't make sense, except as a medium where the entire performance might need to be remixed at a different location -- sort of like shipping a 24 track master tape to a different location than where it was recorded. For virtually everyone else, why would an artist or recording company want to allow the listener to essentially remix the recording?
Other points: Secondly, even a violin has tones ranging from high bass to what is considered mid-range (G below Middle C up to about three octaves higher.) [I haven't played since early H.S., and I am not sure how high the top violinists can go]. So, not counting the overtones (which are important!!), the sound from one instrument still needs to be able to come from more than one driver, so in order to recreate the recording we'd need at least three or more speakers for every instrument and voice.
Even then, it doesn't make sense, because humans only have two ears, and our entire sense of direction about where a sound is coming from is synthesized in the brain by the variation between the sounds coming in the left ear and the right. What many people don't realize is that if, for example, you go to a symphony at with good acoustics, what you are actually mostly hearing is the mix of sounds as reflected by a "sound shell", which integrates the voices (sounds made by the instruments, etc.) acoustically and which a recording engineer simulates electronically. Which is why most of us will do just fine with two high quality, multiple driver speakers, and for movies, etc. the lucky folks who have spent the extra money will have a surround system (IIRC, five speakers).
By the way, if you've never heard a surround system used with a movie that has a high quality, directionally orientd sound track (i.e., where you would hear footsteps behind you if you were actually in the place portrayed by the movie), you're missing a real treat. Of course, one you hear it you'll want a surround system for yourself, so I may have just ruined your budget at some time in the future...
I'm not convinced as to its internal consistency, and I hope it's not as complex as St. Augustine found it...
Without going into the gory details, let me just say that I am a practicing Christian, albeit a quiet one who does not push his world view onto others, and that I find a remarkable consistency to the core Christian beliefs [see C.S. Lewis's book "Mere Christianity" for a good definition]] -- just not all the dogmatic and/or clerical add-ons common to 90% or more of the Christian faiths I have run across.
What I find compelling and unique about Christianity is how the concept of redemption (as I understand it) cleanly resolves the issue of how can a "perfect God" allow us to reside in such an imperfect world, making mistakes, etc. and learning by our own experiences.
I'll stop here, because this is a topic on which I could write pages, and I'm already off topic enough as it is.
Intellectual property is not some glorious pillar of integrity that we are all bound and obligated to adore. It's a bullshit property right...
Other than the fact that I consider your post to be fairly obvious flamebait, let me point out (with a simple example) why "intellectual property" DOES require integrity and is a legally defendable right:
Let's say that in a flash of inspiration, I come up with the core idea for the NEXT NEW WONDERFUL WIDGET!!" but that I do not have the mechanical engineering skills to create it. So I hire (with the requisite non-disclosure non-compete agreement in my NICHE market) and pay the engineers for a year or years to do the R&D, build the assembly line, etc. Because I paid for the development of the technology, I own the intellectual property of how the technology is produced.
If you do not believe me on this, check your case law. I know of many cases where major companies have won judgements (such as Novell vs. Ticonderoga, Stac vs. Microsoft, etc.) based on that exact premise. If I develop the idea, copyright, and/or patent it, I do acquire a legal right to use it exclusively, whether we in the Open Source community wish it to be otherwise or not. Fortunately, folks such as Linus, RMS, Alan Cox, and thousands of others are choosing the Open Source model rather than the proprietary "defend it in court" model.
As I was reading some of the information mentioned in another/. post, I ended up moving to the pages listed at the following site which apparently won in their fight against the Co$ and had their pages restored to the web.
Kudos to the Xenubat web site author for fighting back.
Can't help with the points thing, but a small observation: I think that's what Rob designed the "meta' moderation system for -- so that if other folks disagree with how a specific moderator judges things, things will get balanced out. Maybe another moderator will see your post and agree, and add one of the other moderation codes.
It's mainly two other things: (a) fraud prevention and (B) accreditation, i.e. proving that student "X" did the work, and that the work is equivalent to course "Y" taught at an accredited university. The accreditation councils here in the U.S. are conservative to the max, and not inclined to release their stranglehold on the definition of what constitutes an "accreditable institution".
There are some initiatives moving forward toward "course banks", such as the New York Regents college, etc., but as far as I know, there is not truly an "Open Source Academia" that we could all contribute to (as yet).
Finally, there's the scope problem: assume I put a really great (and fully accredited) "Engineering 101" course (for example) on the web, and that instead of $100 per credit hour, it's either (preferably) free or a modest cost (say $10.00 per credit hour). And any student anywhere can transfer that course to their own institution/degree program of choice, saving $270 for the course. Heck-ov-a server load, wouldn't you agree?
Anyway, that's not going to stop inexpensive online education from happening for much longer. The web and even non-exotic HTML are just too damn powerful to leave the lousy status quo alone.
Face it; if you want to teach biology, evolution is necessary.
Okay, up to now I've been arguing that it isn't. But I'll sit back and offer you the opportunity to tell me why it's necesary, with the offered restriction that the history of the study of biology and the study of biology itself are in fact different topics.
What you call "forcing" and "evolution agenda" other people call education.
Yes, but in those wacky "physics", "mathematics",and "chemistry" agendas, we can do experiments and proofs which make it 99.9% sure that we understand what the truth is regarding the science underneath. So I as a student can gain an education into how the world works by observing the results of those experiments, etc. Unlike "macro" evolution, which has no such proof.
So I would ask you how a more scientific approach(analyze both sides of the argument [evolution or other]) diminishes the ability of public education to fulfill (as you put it) "...the responsibility for enabling people to be productive in society and the economy."
"The idiots in Kansas who gutted their childrens scientific education in the area of biology are dolts." See the response I just posted about whether or not the "scientific education" will be or has been gutted. The decision was about freedom to teach both sides, not about removing the freedom to teach evolution. (Wish I had a link for all of the/. readers that either supports my arguments or blows it away, BTW. My analysis of the decision was based on listening to other analysts in the state of Kansas as interviewed on one of the better KCMO TV stations.)
"So are people who defend this idiocy by making trite pleas for tolerance. The scientific method is orthogonal to tolerance, as should be the standards for scientific education. We are in agreement on the scientific method and it's exactness, but I disagree that "tolerance" is any part of the issue, because the "scientific method" has been used as a tool of persecution and repression too many times. I could use the scientific method to prove the superiority of a given race based on test scores, graduation rates, numbers of people in highly technical positions, etc. and my proof would be a lie, because it doesn't account for all the variations in the human condition.
" Science is about forming theories and then backing them up with emperical evidence. The more emperical evidence supports a particular theory, the more credibility that theory has.... gravitation and evolution... have a tremendous degree of credibility because they are supported by truly overwhelming amounts of emperical evidence.... Gravitation: yes, macro-evolution: no. The fossil record is incomplete, and inconclusive, other than that different types of species appear at different points in the geologic strata of the earth. Which could also be used to say that some type of advanced Being or Beings created things in a certain order, setting up a food chain all the way back to the one-celled organism level, in a way that allows the one celled organisms to clean up the remains (waste and dead) of the more advanced creatures. And that same advanced Being or Beings also gave those creatures limited abilities to adapt to their environments. Think of it as sort of like a grand "Star Trek" "terra-forming" expedition lasting millions of years. Now then what I just wrote is a theory as well as Darwin's. And just as difficult to prove or disprove based on the archeological record.
"Oddly enough, current emperical (sic) evidence does appear to support "the theory that Washington D.C. knows best", at least when compared to Kansas... Hmmm. I'd say otherwise. Kansas seems to have one of the most efficient, and fair state governments that I've seen. I've met Presidents (Ford and Carter), state governors (one from AZ and a couple from Nevada where I grew up), and numerous mayors, etc., and the current governor (Graves) of Kansas is one of the best of them. Lower corruption and more focus on the needs of the people than any other state in which I've lived (Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Utah, Oregon, and Missouri), and alot less elitism, pork-barrel projects and special interest peddling that dominate the current political establishment in D.C. So without any so-called "empirical evidence", other than the fact that you don't agree with the decision of that educational panel's decision in regards to a THEORY, I'd say your argument about the superiority of the federal government just doesn't hold water.
Even Darwin himself did not observe "macro" evolution, in fact, from what I have read (sorry, don't have the source in front of me to quote, so I am paraphrasing), he said that if transient species were not found within a certain number of years, then the "Origin of Species" theory should be discarded in favor of a more limited "micro" evolutionary theory, which is that species can and will adapt for their survival in limited ways.
Which, incidentally, I agree with. For those not familiar with the issue, "macro" or "large" evolution would involve demonstrable fossil or other proof of one species changing into another. "Micro" evolution involves changes within a species which enhance the survival of a smaller subset within the overall group. For example, the Galapagos tortoise differs in it's neck construction than other tortoises which relates to the type of food it has available, and finches (Galapagos and other) seem to adapt in both coloration and beak construction based on local factors. But no one has ever found a finch that was could be stated as a halfway point in evolution to a parrot, or a tortoise that was halfway to whatever the next step down or up the evolutionary ladder would be.
"Hmm...well, I'd say the whole field of biology is predicated on it." I do not want to downplay Darwin's role in the development of the biological sciences, but it depends on what you call biology and what you call history. Let me offer another example. Thousands of experiments with different types of chemicals (a.k.a. drugs) have shown that a given substance will have similar enough effects on mice, primates, and humans) that scientific experiments can be done as to the efficacy and safety of those substances. If Darwin's theory was disproven, none of these experiments would be invalidated, would they? So they don't depend on the theory, even if the original science that allowed the use of animals in experiments related to humans (60+ years ago) was essentially allowed because the theory was accepted as a possibility. (re: the Scope's Monkey trial).
"This decision was made only to remove evolution from the classroom." Actually no. It was to permit teachers the freedom to teach evolution as a more theoretical construct, as opposed to an exclusive, 100% factual construct. What it allows is a teacher to say in effect "Charles Darwin's theory on the Origin of Species was and continues to be an important scientific question. Without disregarding (and therefore dismissing) the fact that macro-evolution hasn't been proven, let's see what we can learn from the theory. Also, we can now discuss alternatives to the theory without being punished." Which frees a student to learn and make up his own mind, versus being forced to accept something not proven as fact. Which IMHO would be the same thing as saying "Communism is superior to free market capitalism" and expecting a student to accept it as fact without a shred of evidence to support it.
(I'll admit nitpicking on this next point, BTW) "If they don't, well, it will be directly BECAUSE of this verdict." It wasn't a verdict. It was a vote, which IIRC passed by a one vote margin. So in effect, the one vote margin ends up being a test of what will happen, because if the decision doesn't work well, ONE person on the State board can change their mind next time the issue is voted on, and the "test" will be over.
"I find the debate useless also, because it is typically one-sided: people who don't like the "idea" of it attempting to discredit its fact." Well hmmm. How about the fact that people who don't like the idea that macro-evolution has never been proven to occur conveniently ignore that point and trumpet the whole construct as FACT?? Tie score I'd say: and we are free to disagree, unlike in science where a firm verdict/end point can be reached. (It's been proven that airplanes fly because wings generate lift based on the Bernouilli principle.)
At some point, I will post my own thoughts on the whole issue on a website I am currently developing (CityOfDreams.Org -- not worth clicking on yet as I am still building the database back end.) In the meatime, BTW, I appreciate your cogent analysis and discussion of the "pro-evolution" side even if I am unconvinced by the arguments.
Finally, in re-reading my original post, I realize that I was out of line in my comment about you probably voting for Gore. I just don't like the mind set which says that the federal gov't is somehow wiser than local folks, and your original post hit that particular "pet peeve" button. So I responded with a poorly written, sarcastic slap at the end of my post, for which I apologize.
Though I live in Missouri, I'll stick up for my Kansas brethren and say "catch a clue". For those who don't know what the reference is about, not too long ago, the State Board of Education in Kansas recently voted in a manner that allows local school districts to decide whether or not -- or in what form the theory of evolution would be taught.
During the debate I heard numerous commentators discussing how Darwinistic evolution is "one of the pillars of Western Scientific thought" etc. and how a person couldn't be truly grounded in scientific principles without it.
Which is a load of crap. Very few of the sciences actually have any direct relation to do with Darwin's theory, e.g., the airplane flies because of aerodynamic principles, not because of a useless debate over whether man descended from monkeys or was created (okay, you may now start the obligatory "creation vs. evolution flamewars").
But to call a group of individuals "dolts" because they chose to return the power to decide how things will be taught to a local level? Hmmm. Sounds like you might be the type of person to vote for Gore after all under the theory that Washington D.C. knows best.
Kudos to a well read/.'r. I'd read the book a while back, and am still surprised by how well and how often it hits the nail smack on the head.
As to the accuracy of the quotes, I can't vouch 100%, but IIRC, the concepts are exactly what Smith warned about in relation to monopolist companies. Plus a number of other thoughts which connected those same companies to the manipulation of government processes to their own ends such as is so common in the US Congress right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Kosovo was highest on the list, however more people give credit to Clinton and Albright than for those members of the military(s) who planned and fulfilled the missions, and none at all for K4 -- who has the more difficult job of building the peace.
So this post is kindof a personal protest on behalf of those who are on the front lines.
And while some may mock my belief(s) in God, please know that I mean it when it when I borrow and change a quote from Tiny Tim (in Dicken's "A Christmas Carol", not the singer) and say "God bless them, one and all."
Is for the troops of K4 in Kosovo and the other peacekeeping forces deployed world-wide, under the concept that "peace on earth, good will towards men..." is an idea that these men and women believe in strongly enough to be out there, putting their lives on the line every day.
Ya'see, Rudolph is actually carrying the highly advanced tech required to make the whole Christmas delivery thing work. The light from his nose is actually the doppler shifted reflection of a minituarized ST:NG Impulse engine. The Sleigh is carrying a minituarized Warp Generator which, when in use, causes the sleigh to appear as a shooting star or a twinkle (depending on viewing angle). Claus uses the Picard manuever to be in several places at once, and, as demand for his services has grown, has taken to using a holodeck projected image of himself and molecular transporters to get the work done.
The cookies, etc. are then transported back to the workshop and converted to their constituent elements for use in next year's toys.
Geez, don't they teach elementary (ST:NG) 24th century physics around here anymore?
The best example I can think of is genealogy sites -- as data gets added, it gets put into a hierarchy, but doesn't change much thereafter. Using this example, I may want to find (via a search engine) references to the Wallace B. XYZ family genealogy. Perhaps I contribute a new "branch" to the tree -- is this spam? No, it's information which other genealogical researches may need to be able to find.
As always, I welcome further discussion...
What I try to prevent is the problem I am going to mention next, which is that it seems like with many data driven sites, the content pages "expire" (i.e., they are aged out of the database -- thus disappearing from the site) without any notification to the search engines that the page is expired.
As an example, I use a product which performs queries against 10-12 search engines at the same time. For any given search, 10% or more of the pages will be invalid. What little research I have done into the invalid sites often shows that the page has been dead for more than a year -- even when 8 or more of the search engines advertise that they have (at least in theory) spidered the page within the last 60 days.
What we have here is a problem in search of a standards based solution (an official RFC) designed to bring order out of the chaos.
My own thought (which I acknowledge are from someone who has been doing data driven sites for less than a year) is that there ought to be a standard way of telling an external spider to use a "site local" index file, similar to how the robots.txt file excludes some or all of a site from spidering (assuming the spider's coders obey the standards -- not all do.)
It then becomes the data-driven site's coders responsibility to add the added code which updates the robot's index file "automagically" based on the content changes to the site.
It also seems to me like browsers could access this file to see if a bookmark is still active, and with the proper format, maybe even update the local bookmark file. Something like this:
:= http//mygreat.com/new.html.
I'm interested in what more experienced coders have to say about this idea, BTW.http://mygreatsite.com/old.html
I think you're right -- that would probably work. If I'm understanding you right, the spider would be return two lists, the "intra-site" links and the extra-site links, the server/servers storing the data would only have to check the "outside links".
Would this work for database driven sites as well?
I'm wondering if this would be THE weak link in this idea. It seems to me that with the speed that the spidering engines works, you'd need a huge amount of processors at the "server" level just to eliminate the doubles. I use a freeware tool which collects data from 10-12 different search engines and attempts to eliminate the duplicates, only to get the same page numerous times from different sourced origin points, not even counting sites which are mirrored.
Any thoughts out there on how to solve this problem?
First of all, the code running /. today is not a year older than the 0.3 preball, or the 0.2 code. The code page itself mentions that both are somewhat orphans as the code now in use is more like a 0.4 release.
From what I understand, Rob Malda is now not the only coder working on the site -- supposedly andover.net has made it so possible for there to be three coders actively working to improve the /. engine.
In the mean time, I know that Malda is seriously sick of all the whining about the "where's the code????" because he posts occasionally to one of the mail groups and said something to the effect that "every time someone whines about the code, he wants to delay the release one day more." [Rob -- feel free to correct me here...]
I do feel that maybe the folks at /. and Andover should post a story which updates us all on the status of the newer code, and will probably e-mail Rob with a request to do so.
In the mean time, what I notice is that the response time is quicker, more stories are being posted, yes --some mistakes are being made, (and quickly apologized for), and it feels to me like things are becoming fun for Malda & co. again. (For a while they were burning the 70 hr a week candle, and just barely surviving monetarily).
Just my $.02 worth, with feedback always appreciated.
Part of what is not mentioned in any of these articles is that the former head of Java development at IBM (Patricia Sueltz) was lured to Sun towards the end of the summer and is now in charge of the Java effort there. While the article which announced the change emphasizes her wide view of Java and desire to keep Java unified, it remained to be seen whether this was lip service or not.
My thoughts are that Pat Sueltz did enough good for Java while at IBM that she ought to be amenable and keep a listening ear for response from those of us who count ourselves as "individual" (vs. corporate) members of the Java Community. Feel free to use this link to the java.sun.com feedback page, but please, be polite. Turning the wrath of /. on any company via their provided feedback mechanism(s) has bad karma, and a few well thought out, reasonable responses will get more attention that a thousand flame messages.
However, there's a major difference between the freedom offered by the MP3 format, and that of "free exposure" as offered by many MP3 sites. Which is that because of the ubiquitous nature of the Internet, there can never be the near monopoly power that the record companies have managed to pull off in the retail CD market. If the major sites work against the artists, those artists will move their music elsewhere, to sites which truly respect and take care of (financially and otherwise) their talent base. MP3 can't market 26,000 new artists -- so why in the heck do they sign them up with such horrendous contracts?
Well, dad's old rules apply: (#1) don't expect to get something for nothing, and (#2) read the fine print before you sign your name. Then walk away and think about what you read, and finally, if in doubt in reference to #2, consult someone who can help.
Just my $.02 worth.
That said, using all that data space for separate sound tracks would be extremely storage intensive, something I didn't think about yesterday. BTW, both of the above items can be done fairly well with the standard controls on a good stereo and/or surround system, as long as it is equipped with a good multiband equalizer.
--flamethrower on --
May I suggest you a). take time to think about what Katz is trying to say, and b). post a more coherent, well thought out response, with specific disagreements and reasonings, I'd have more respect. As it is, Katz gets my vote.
Having read some of Jon's books now, I'd hesitate to accuse him of "just being a reporter stating the obvious". You might consider the term "essayist", because AFAICT, reporters tell what happened, essayists try to draw out the deeper meaning of what is happening and why. Consider:
--Flamethrower off--
Funny thing is, I don't always agree with that Jon Katz has to say. But I admire him (and /.) for the fact he's willing to put his thoughts to the web for us to think, rant, rave, and flame about.
In relation to using personal information on the net (including my e-mail address, you may notice that I did not "anti-spam" my e-mail address here on /. However, I only use that e-mail address in conjunction with a few sites, limiting the number of points from which my personal information can be derived to those sites with privacy policies that are up to spec, saving my regular e-mail address only being given to a much more private and personalized list of people that I am willing to receive information from. That way if there is a security problem, I know where it originated by my email address. Similarly, when I write software that uses cookies, I don't put any personal information in it. All of that type of information can and should only be kept in a back end database, well shielded from crackers, etc. For example, on one e-commerce site I designed, the cookie "knew" who you were, but in order to place a credit card order, you had to validate certain information within an encrypted page, even though the user had already "registered" their information (including the c.c. #) into the database via the web. We also included a fraud detection program designed to stop the c.c. # generators from ever being able to spoof an order. And folks, it just wasn't that hard to do!!
I agree with previous posters. The Novell CEO was trying to sell proprietary software, and claiming to have been attacked by the "poison cookie" monster in order to do so.
Other points: Secondly, even a violin has tones ranging from high bass to what is considered mid-range (G below Middle C up to about three octaves higher.) [I haven't played since early H.S., and I am not sure how high the top violinists can go]. So, not counting the overtones (which are important!!), the sound from one instrument still needs to be able to come from more than one driver, so in order to recreate the recording we'd need at least three or more speakers for every instrument and voice.
Even then, it doesn't make sense, because humans only have two ears, and our entire sense of direction about where a sound is coming from is synthesized in the brain by the variation between the sounds coming in the left ear and the right. What many people don't realize is that if, for example, you go to a symphony at with good acoustics, what you are actually mostly hearing is the mix of sounds as reflected by a "sound shell", which integrates the voices (sounds made by the instruments, etc.) acoustically and which a recording engineer simulates electronically. Which is why most of us will do just fine with two high quality, multiple driver speakers, and for movies, etc. the lucky folks who have spent the extra money will have a surround system (IIRC, five speakers).
By the way, if you've never heard a surround system used with a movie that has a high quality, directionally orientd sound track (i.e., where you would hear footsteps behind you if you were actually in the place portrayed by the movie), you're missing a real treat. Of course, one you hear it you'll want a surround system for yourself, so I may have just ruined your budget at some time in the future...
Without going into the gory details, let me just say that I am a practicing Christian, albeit a quiet one who does not push his world view onto others, and that I find a remarkable consistency to the core Christian beliefs [see C.S. Lewis's book "Mere Christianity" for a good definition]] -- just not all the dogmatic and/or clerical add-ons common to 90% or more of the Christian faiths I have run across.
What I find compelling and unique about Christianity is how the concept of redemption (as I understand it) cleanly resolves the issue of how can a "perfect God" allow us to reside in such an imperfect world, making mistakes, etc. and learning by our own experiences.
I'll stop here, because this is a topic on which I could write pages, and I'm already off topic enough as it is.
Other than the fact that I consider your post to be fairly obvious flamebait, let me point out (with a simple example) why "intellectual property" DOES require integrity and is a legally defendable right:
Let's say that in a flash of inspiration, I come up with the core idea for the NEXT NEW WONDERFUL WIDGET!!" but that I do not have the mechanical engineering skills to create it. So I hire (with the requisite non-disclosure non-compete agreement in my NICHE market) and pay the engineers for a year or years to do the R&D, build the assembly line, etc. Because I paid for the development of the technology, I own the intellectual property of how the technology is produced.
If you do not believe me on this, check your case law. I know of many cases where major companies have won judgements (such as Novell vs. Ticonderoga, Stac vs. Microsoft, etc.) based on that exact premise. If I develop the idea, copyright, and/or patent it, I do acquire a legal right to use it exclusively, whether we in the Open Source community wish it to be otherwise or not. Fortunately, folks such as Linus, RMS, Alan Cox, and thousands of others are choosing the Open Source model rather than the proprietary "defend it in court" model.
Kudos to the Xenubat web site author for fighting back.
Can't help with the points thing, but a small observation: I think that's what Rob designed the "meta' moderation system for -- so that if other folks disagree with how a specific moderator judges things, things will get balanced out. Maybe another moderator will see your post and agree, and add one of the other moderation codes.
There are some initiatives moving forward toward "course banks", such as the New York Regents college, etc., but as far as I know, there is not truly an "Open Source Academia" that we could all contribute to (as yet).
Finally, there's the scope problem: assume I put a really great (and fully accredited) "Engineering 101" course (for example) on the web, and that instead of $100 per credit hour, it's either (preferably) free or a modest cost (say $10.00 per credit hour). And any student anywhere can transfer that course to their own institution/degree program of choice, saving $270 for the course. Heck-ov-a server load, wouldn't you agree?
Anyway, that's not going to stop inexpensive online education from happening for much longer. The web and even non-exotic HTML are just too damn powerful to leave the lousy status quo alone.
Okay, up to now I've been arguing that it isn't. But I'll sit back and offer you the opportunity to tell me why it's necesary, with the offered restriction that the history of the study of biology and the study of biology itself are in fact different topics.
Yes, but in those wacky "physics", "mathematics",and "chemistry" agendas, we can do experiments and proofs which make it 99.9% sure that we understand what the truth is regarding the science underneath. So I as a student can gain an education into how the world works by observing the results of those experiments, etc. Unlike "macro" evolution, which has no such proof.
So I would ask you how a more scientific approach(analyze both sides of the argument [evolution or other]) diminishes the ability of public education to fulfill (as you put it) "...the responsibility for enabling people to be productive in society and the economy."
"So are people who defend this idiocy by making trite pleas for tolerance. The scientific method is orthogonal to tolerance, as should be the standards for scientific education. We are in agreement on the scientific method and it's exactness, but I disagree that "tolerance" is any part of the issue, because the "scientific method" has been used as a tool of persecution and repression too many times. I could use the scientific method to prove the superiority of a given race based on test scores, graduation rates, numbers of people in highly technical positions, etc. and my proof would be a lie, because it doesn't account for all the variations in the human condition.
" Science is about forming theories and then backing them up with emperical evidence. The more emperical evidence supports a particular theory, the more credibility that theory has.... gravitation and evolution... have a tremendous degree of credibility because they are supported by truly overwhelming amounts of emperical evidence.... Gravitation: yes, macro-evolution: no. The fossil record is incomplete, and inconclusive, other than that different types of species appear at different points in the geologic strata of the earth. Which could also be used to say that some type of advanced Being or Beings created things in a certain order, setting up a food chain all the way back to the one-celled organism level, in a way that allows the one celled organisms to clean up the remains (waste and dead) of the more advanced creatures. And that same advanced Being or Beings also gave those creatures limited abilities to adapt to their environments. Think of it as sort of like a grand "Star Trek" "terra-forming" expedition lasting millions of years. Now then what I just wrote is a theory as well as Darwin's. And just as difficult to prove or disprove based on the archeological record.
"Oddly enough, current emperical (sic) evidence does appear to support "the theory that Washington D.C. knows best", at least when compared to Kansas... Hmmm. I'd say otherwise. Kansas seems to have one of the most efficient, and fair state governments that I've seen. I've met Presidents (Ford and Carter), state governors (one from AZ and a couple from Nevada where I grew up), and numerous mayors, etc., and the current governor (Graves) of Kansas is one of the best of them. Lower corruption and more focus on the needs of the people than any other state in which I've lived (Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Utah, Oregon, and Missouri), and alot less elitism, pork-barrel projects and special interest peddling that dominate the current political establishment in D.C. So without any so-called "empirical evidence", other than the fact that you don't agree with the decision of that educational panel's decision in regards to a THEORY, I'd say your argument about the superiority of the federal government just doesn't hold water.
Which, incidentally, I agree with. For those not familiar with the issue, "macro" or "large" evolution would involve demonstrable fossil or other proof of one species changing into another. "Micro" evolution involves changes within a species which enhance the survival of a smaller subset within the overall group. For example, the Galapagos tortoise differs in it's neck construction than other tortoises which relates to the type of food it has available, and finches (Galapagos and other) seem to adapt in both coloration and beak construction based on local factors. But no one has ever found a finch that was could be stated as a halfway point in evolution to a parrot, or a tortoise that was halfway to whatever the next step down or up the evolutionary ladder would be.
"Hmm...well, I'd say the whole field of biology is predicated on it." I do not want to downplay Darwin's role in the development of the biological sciences, but it depends on what you call biology and what you call history. Let me offer another example. Thousands of experiments with different types of chemicals (a.k.a. drugs) have shown that a given substance will have similar enough effects on mice, primates, and humans) that scientific experiments can be done as to the efficacy and safety of those substances. If Darwin's theory was disproven, none of these experiments would be invalidated, would they? So they don't depend on the theory, even if the original science that allowed the use of animals in experiments related to humans (60+ years ago) was essentially allowed because the theory was accepted as a possibility. (re: the Scope's Monkey trial).
"This decision was made only to remove evolution from the classroom." Actually no. It was to permit teachers the freedom to teach evolution as a more theoretical construct, as opposed to an exclusive, 100% factual construct. What it allows is a teacher to say in effect "Charles Darwin's theory on the Origin of Species was and continues to be an important scientific question. Without disregarding (and therefore dismissing) the fact that macro-evolution hasn't been proven, let's see what we can learn from the theory. Also, we can now discuss alternatives to the theory without being punished." Which frees a student to learn and make up his own mind, versus being forced to accept something not proven as fact. Which IMHO would be the same thing as saying "Communism is superior to free market capitalism" and expecting a student to accept it as fact without a shred of evidence to support it.
(I'll admit nitpicking on this next point, BTW) "If they don't, well, it will be directly BECAUSE of this verdict." It wasn't a verdict. It was a vote, which IIRC passed by a one vote margin. So in effect, the one vote margin ends up being a test of what will happen, because if the decision doesn't work well, ONE person on the State board can change their mind next time the issue is voted on, and the "test" will be over.
"I find the debate useless also, because it is typically one-sided: people who don't like the "idea" of it attempting to discredit its fact." Well hmmm. How about the fact that people who don't like the idea that macro-evolution has never been proven to occur conveniently ignore that point and trumpet the whole construct as FACT?? Tie score I'd say: and we are free to disagree, unlike in science where a firm verdict/end point can be reached. (It's been proven that airplanes fly because wings generate lift based on the Bernouilli principle.)
At some point, I will post my own thoughts on the whole issue on a website I am currently developing (CityOfDreams.Org -- not worth clicking on yet as I am still building the database back end.) In the meatime, BTW, I appreciate your cogent analysis and discussion of the "pro-evolution" side even if I am unconvinced by the arguments.
Finally, in re-reading my original post, I realize that I was out of line in my comment about you probably voting for Gore. I just don't like the mind set which says that the federal gov't is somehow wiser than local folks, and your original post hit that particular "pet peeve" button. So I responded with a poorly written, sarcastic slap at the end of my post, for which I apologize.
During the debate I heard numerous commentators discussing how Darwinistic evolution is "one of the pillars of Western Scientific thought" etc. and how a person couldn't be truly grounded in scientific principles without it.
Which is a load of crap. Very few of the sciences actually have any direct relation to do with Darwin's theory, e.g., the airplane flies because of aerodynamic principles, not because of a useless debate over whether man descended from monkeys or was created (okay, you may now start the obligatory "creation vs. evolution flamewars").
But to call a group of individuals "dolts" because they chose to return the power to decide how things will be taught to a local level? Hmmm. Sounds like you might be the type of person to vote for Gore after all under the theory that Washington D.C. knows best.
Kudos to a well read /.'r. I'd read the book a while back, and am still surprised by how well and how often it hits the nail smack on the head.
As to the accuracy of the quotes, I can't vouch 100%, but IIRC, the concepts are exactly what Smith warned about in relation to monopolist companies. Plus a number of other thoughts which connected those same companies to the manipulation of government processes to their own ends such as is so common in the US Congress right now.