It says "open" not "open source." It's open in the sense that any web site can use myuid to autheticate users, as opposed to MS Passport which requires a hefty contract with MS.
It seems as if they didn't present compelling enough evidence to the judge.
You're only half right. They did provide adequate evidence of what the users were doing. The judge said that he didn't think that making music available via P2P was illegal -- hence he saw no evidence of infringement.
This is also true of other types of household cleaners - some even mention something along the lines of *with Bitrex* on the label. Look for this and, as the original poster suggested, your problems will be solved.
Except that the reason Bitrex is added is usually because the product is extremely toxic. If you could get the Bitrex by itself, that would be okay -- which brings us back to the suggestion which started this thread.
There is, however, a hint of a better question in flyingember's post when he talks about how he's got good response out of HP's online chat. What I'd like to hear from slashdotters is what type of response you get from specific companies in different mediums.
e.g. when you contact eBay through their webforms/email, they first respond with a form letter that doesn't answer your question and then you reply explaining why it doesn't answer your question and then on the second (or third) response, you get the answer to your question. When you use their chat service, you get good answers quickly, but the people manning the chat service are outsourcers and can only provide information on how to use eBay in general -- they can't answer specific questions about your account or anything that's gone wrong, etc.
Exactly. It's just like textbooks -- you can buy a copy and you're not allowed to photocopy it instead. If the pieces of music are required texts for the class then there's nothing wrong with making a list expecting the students to buy them -- in whatever format they prefer.
But all that uniqueness would also presumably reduce your ranking for the desired search term, as less of the content would appear to have to do with that term
Google tries to find a formula that gets you the best result for what you're searching for. Some web site owners try to figure out this formula in order to make their page show up in the search resuls when it shouldn't (e.g. by having words in the URL or within certain tags on the page -- rather than by having content relevant to that topic). This makes Google less useful (including for the purpose you describe) and so Google is "demoting" pages which show signs of using these tricks. This tug-of-war has been going on as long as there have been internet search engines. The difference now is that Google accounts for so much of the searches on the net that getting a lower rank in Google can have a huge effect on a site's traffic and so people freak out about it.
Seth Finkelstein has been posting a few theories lately on what Google is up to. (Also contains links to other articles.) He suspects they are using some sort of Bayesian filtering around the rule "If a simple search has spam-related keywords, penalize high-spam-scoring results" (spam being search-keyword spam on web pages -- not e-mail spam)
The "misunderstanding" of the master/slave terminology is entirely the fault of the bureacracy at LA county.
What do you mean by the fault of the bureaucracy? A misunderstanding is the "fault" of a person or persons -- perhaps the bureaucracy hasn't responded correctly to the misunderstanding.
Are we to stop using the term "Head Master" to describe the person (male or female or whatever gender they identify themselves as) responsible for guiding the curriculum and discipline of a school?
If the school will lose students over it, yes. There are many things worth fighting for, worth losing money/clients/students/etc. for. This isn't one of them for me. If the school believes there's a principle here that's worth losing students over, then they should stand up for that principle. If the parents can't find a school that meets their requirements, then the parents will have to make some adjustments to their requirements. If the parents want their students to be taught only in classrooms that are painted purple they are free to request this and the schools are free to say "we can't do that." The parents are free to go to another place that meets their requirements. That's not unreasonable, even if the requirements are frivolous. Unreasonable would be continuing to insist that schools meet their frivolous requirements after discovering that none are currently able to. (This might not be unreasonable if the requirements are not frivoulous. I guess I don't see the frivolity of the requirement being an issue until it has been determined that no vendor is able to comply)
You have fine logical arguments that make sense to me. However, I don't think that people's sense of offense usually comes from a place of logic (in any case, logical arguments rarely help). Emotions are generally involuntary responses based on a person's past experience. While we don't want to comprimise our principles or product quality etc. in response to the arbitrary things that might cause people offence, if there is a way to accomodate them that doesn't hurt us then we should accomodate them. How much it hurts us depends on things you mention like how much it costs the taxpayers. AFAICT this is yet to be determined.
1) Words that have different meaning in the world of computers than they do elsewhere have long caused confusion and misunderstanding. This is not news.
2) When the computer-savvy laugh at others for this misunderstanding, it seems a little like a nasty trick. We change the meaning of common words and then laugh at you when it trips you up.
3) If such a misunderstanding were to occur in the case of master/slave, it should not be surprising that it may cause offence.
4) A buyer is free to make whatever demands they want of a vendor (and the vendor is free to say "we don't do that"). My definition of an outrageous demand is one that is impossible for the vendor to meet (e.g. impossible to do A for $B, or mutually exclusive requirements, or breaks the laws of physics or logic etc.). This does not meet that requirement. Vendors change their terminology for their clients all the time -- and usually for much more frivolous reasons than this.
Mr. Deming from Belkin has now posted the following to the usenet thread
All,
We at Belkin apologize for the recent trouble our customers have experienced with the wireless router/browser redirect issue. We unintentionally overlooked the effect this feature would have. We never intended to compromise the trust of our customers, and we never intend to do so in the future.
We are taking responsibility for this, and we will be offering firmware fixes early next week. We do not have exact details yet as we are still working on them, and will continue to work on them over the weekend. What we can tell you now is that each Router's firmware that incorporates Parental Control as an option will be changed.
I'll keep posting as things develop. Stay tuned...
Still insecure. Where the form is loaded from is irrelevant. If the form you load from the router's ROM can send a POST to the router's IP that changes settings in the router, then so can a form you load from any site on the web. It might need you to press the submit button, but how many times do you do that when you're using the web and how often do you check the source to make sure the form is actually submitting the information you expect to the location you expect?
Reason: filter.belkin.com sends a response to the Router to set the flag. Firewalls will block the response.
I don't know what kind of "response" he is refering to, but it makes me wonder if the router has an open port that allows configuration modifications from the outside... If so, add another major strike against them--the blackhats will have a lot of fun with that one.
Yes, you can change this setting in the router by clicking a "No Thanks" button on the web site to which it is redirecting you.
For internal communication, the concept of agency is not necessarily required as there's not much "hunting down" to do. The idea of RSS feeds makes good sense to me. Employee N needs to get the announcements about projects X, Y, and Z, so they subscribe to the RSS feeds for those projects -- switching from sender-push model to a reader-pull model cuts down on the clutter quite nicely (and distributes the network activity over a longer period of time). If the user needs an agent to tell them who has the information they need, the problem is much bigger than the technical issues:-)
Slashdot Mirror
It says "open" not "open source." It's open in the sense that any web site can use myuid to autheticate users, as opposed to MS Passport which requires a hefty contract with MS.
Never been to the east coast then, eh, b'y?
Converging. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You're only half right. They did provide adequate evidence of what the users were doing. The judge said that he didn't think that making music available via P2P was illegal -- hence he saw no evidence of infringement.
Seeing as "electrocution" means "death by electric shock," I would expect that what you say is true :-)
Except that the reason Bitrex is added is usually because the product is extremely toxic. If you could get the Bitrex by itself, that would be okay -- which brings us back to the suggestion which started this thread.
Exactly. It depends.
There is, however, a hint of a better question in flyingember's post when he talks about how he's got good response out of HP's online chat. What I'd like to hear from slashdotters is what type of response you get from specific companies in different mediums.
e.g. when you contact eBay through their webforms/email, they first respond with a form letter that doesn't answer your question and then you reply explaining why it doesn't answer your question and then on the second (or third) response, you get the answer to your question. When you use their chat service, you get good answers quickly, but the people manning the chat service are outsourcers and can only provide information on how to use eBay in general -- they can't answer specific questions about your account or anything that's gone wrong, etc.
Exactly. It's just like textbooks -- you can buy a copy and you're not allowed to photocopy it instead. If the pieces of music are required texts for the class then there's nothing wrong with making a list expecting the students to buy them -- in whatever format they prefer.
I think FAT16 is the best remote filesystem -- I like it best when FAT16 is as remote from myself as possible.
Yes. It's launched in Canada already details here.
Spoilers? Are there any slashdot users who haven't read the book? :-)
on what do you base this assumption?
But all that uniqueness would also presumably reduce your ranking for the desired search term, as less of the content would appear to have to do with that term
Google tries to find a formula that gets you the best result for what you're searching for. Some web site owners try to figure out this formula in order to make their page show up in the search resuls when it shouldn't (e.g. by having words in the URL or within certain tags on the page -- rather than by having content relevant to that topic). This makes Google less useful (including for the purpose you describe) and so Google is "demoting" pages which show signs of using these tricks. This tug-of-war has been going on as long as there have been internet search engines. The difference now is that Google accounts for so much of the searches on the net that getting a lower rank in Google can have a huge effect on a site's traffic and so people freak out about it.
Seth Finkelstein has been posting a few theories lately on what Google is up to. (Also contains links to other articles.) He suspects they are using some sort of Bayesian filtering around the rule "If a simple search has spam-related keywords, penalize high-spam-scoring results" (spam being search-keyword spam on web pages -- not e-mail spam)
What do you mean by the fault of the bureaucracy? A misunderstanding is the "fault" of a person or persons -- perhaps the bureaucracy hasn't responded correctly to the misunderstanding.
If the school will lose students over it, yes. There are many things worth fighting for, worth losing money/clients/students/etc. for. This isn't one of them for me. If the school believes there's a principle here that's worth losing students over, then they should stand up for that principle. If the parents can't find a school that meets their requirements, then the parents will have to make some adjustments to their requirements. If the parents want their students to be taught only in classrooms that are painted purple they are free to request this and the schools are free to say "we can't do that." The parents are free to go to another place that meets their requirements. That's not unreasonable, even if the requirements are frivolous. Unreasonable would be continuing to insist that schools meet their frivolous requirements after discovering that none are currently able to. (This might not be unreasonable if the requirements are not frivoulous. I guess I don't see the frivolity of the requirement being an issue until it has been determined that no vendor is able to comply)
You have fine logical arguments that make sense to me. However, I don't think that people's sense of offense usually comes from a place of logic (in any case, logical arguments rarely help). Emotions are generally involuntary responses based on a person's past experience. While we don't want to comprimise our principles or product quality etc. in response to the arbitrary things that might cause people offence, if there is a way to accomodate them that doesn't hurt us then we should accomodate them. How much it hurts us depends on things you mention like how much it costs the taxpayers. AFAICT this is yet to be determined.
Okay, I was speaking only of the buyer-vendor relationship -- there are also other possible consequences.
Random thoughts:
1) Words that have different meaning in the world of computers than they do elsewhere have long caused confusion and misunderstanding. This is not news.
2) When the computer-savvy laugh at others for this misunderstanding, it seems a little like a nasty trick. We change the meaning of common words and then laugh at you when it trips you up.
3) If such a misunderstanding were to occur in the case of master/slave, it should not be surprising that it may cause offence.
4) A buyer is free to make whatever demands they want of a vendor (and the vendor is free to say "we don't do that"). My definition of an outrageous demand is one that is impossible for the vendor to meet (e.g. impossible to do A for $B, or mutually exclusive requirements, or breaks the laws of physics or logic etc.). This does not meet that requirement. Vendors change their terminology for their clients all the time -- and usually for much more frivolous reasons than this.
Right where it is will be just fine
Give it time -- it's the middle of the night.
We'll have to see what they come up with next week.
Still insecure. Where the form is loaded from is irrelevant. If the form you load from the router's ROM can send a POST to the router's IP that changes settings in the router, then so can a form you load from any site on the web. It might need you to press the submit button, but how many times do you do that when you're using the web and how often do you check the source to make sure the form is actually submitting the information you expect to the location you expect?
Yes, you can change this setting in the router by clicking a "No Thanks" button on the web site to which it is redirecting you.
Here's the usenet thread where this was first discussed. Especially noteable are the initial discovery, the response from Belkin and the first response to Belkin. After that it it's pretty much the same thing you can expect to see here on /.
For internal communication, the concept of agency is not necessarily required as there's not much "hunting down" to do. The idea of RSS feeds makes good sense to me. Employee N needs to get the announcements about projects X, Y, and Z, so they subscribe to the RSS feeds for those projects -- switching from sender-push model to a reader-pull model cuts down on the clutter quite nicely (and distributes the network activity over a longer period of time). If the user needs an agent to tell them who has the information they need, the problem is much bigger than the technical issues :-)