I periodically run dead link checking software to perform this function with regards to my bookmarks, some of which I publish on my web sites.
There are many things that happen to links, such as redirects, but to conclude that a link is down because you get a 4xx or 5xx HTTP response is extreme. Sometimes sites go down for a period of time for various reasons. Such a link replacement process would need to have some kind of forgiveness mechanism. Further, sometimes links move elsewhere without the benefit of redirects--this replacement process therefore shouldn't replace links with "related" content, but the same content that's moved to another spot.
The bottom line is that the replacement process requires a step in the process where a human being reviews link change recommendations.
OK... this hacker has become a celebrity of sorts, who has got all kinds of publicity. Then, consider how many programmers these days are discriminated against for all sorts of reasons, like age, not having exact skill sets, and the like. Methinks the famous hacker has the great advantage.
Heck, I'd rather be this hacker than being the relatively unknown programmer. I'd love for 50% of those polled saying they would hire me!
Oftentimes, Wikipedia articles are indeed written by people who are very knowledgeable of the topic in the article, virtually sign their name to it, and end up being responsible for most of the subsequent edits (and making sure others don't add incorrect material). It's a matter of people taking their pet subjects, making articles out of them, and then continuing to nurture them over time. This approach sounds as good to me as what you describe for traditional encyclopedias.
Perhaps a new meta tag could suggest the addresses of peer servers or mirrors. And browsers would be updated to take this info into account. Just a thought.
First, the article confuses WWW with the Internet, so we don't know what architectural perspective they're referring to.
Then, this doozy: "'We're running up on some architectural limitations,' Gelsinger was quoted as saying." Ummm... which are?? At least give us a friggin' nutshell!!!
I'm thinking this article should win a "Worst of 2004" award.
our founding fathers had absolutely no intention of us ever becoming a democracy and were extremely afraid of every person having a vote.
Let's not discount the other founding fathers behind Amendments to the Constitution (not to mention state constitutions) that have moved us toward greater democracy. To say that the decisions of over 200 years ago were perfect and could not have changed is to say that no intelligent political thinkers followed them. And that's pap nonsense.
just remember, a democracy is 3 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what to have for dinner!!!
No, that's called majoritarianism. Modern liberal democracy includes constitutional protections for minorities and individuals. People need to stop these numbskull attacks on our democratic heritage.
The best way to fix problems with democracy is to add more democracy!
If you want support by opponents, develop fail-safe production _and_ disposal methods first. Stop deploying the archconservative apples/oranges tactic of comparison to coal. The problem with nuclear is the potential for far greater ecological damage, and unless you can mitigate that risk nearly entirely, fuggetaboutit.
True democracy = a democracy where the people's views are heeded in decision-making, whether by representatives or citizen initiatives, and that the rights of minorities and individuals are constitutionally protected, as in any liberal democracy. True democracy doesn't reverse liberal democracy, but rather enhances it.
these days there is no where to run, there is no one to fight against
The unintended beauty of globalism (well, unintended for corporatists) is that ultimately, the big corporations will have nowhere to run (except, perhaps to Bush's Mars), as 'global politics' (whatever that becomes) develops into a power that counteracts corporate power.
the media and content distribution industries are genuinely screwed without government being there to "make the scary things go away"
These industries incorrectly assume that governments can make the entirety of the masses act in a perfectly legal manner to protect the intellectual property of a few wealthy corporations from going into "effective public domain". Whether the content industries lose fast or lose slowly, they still lose in the end.
but what I really think the Lefties should concentrate on is not throwing the whole system out but rather tweak how it works
I often argue the same thing, in that we need a "progressive left" that accepts market mechanisms and makes the best of them to achieve the social impacts they desire, even using the free market to defeat big corporate interests and overly centralized wealth/power... that's fair, indeed.
Playing devil's advocate... what are we to do with the vast number of communities already designed "optimally" for private transportation? Who bares the cost to totally redesign them? (I'm honestly interested in the response, whatever it is)
We are heading towards a situation where everybody in the world could carry the entire cultural content of the world in their back pocket (well I exaggerate), but we would disallow that for the profit of the very few.
But, it cannot be disallowed--control over what cannot be controlled is indeed the folly of contemporary big monied interests. They will lose, and the people (or rather, the public domain) will win, even if it makes all human beings "criminal" with regards to the notions of copyrights and intellectual property.
I think it's conscious, as people understand that their reputation is enhanced as they contribute. And who lends reputation? The other players in the collective, grasshopper.:)
You're right. Greed can exist in a collective mode, too, like in the commodification of particular types of software (like OpenOffice) for the common good, thereby saving lots of people from dumping more money into Microsoft's coffers. Greed doesn't only exist with regards to making money, but saving money as well.
If people want to band together loosely and develop ways to deny wealth to big corporations, they have this implicit right in a capitalistic, free society. If big corporations continue to do what they're doing, a second-tier economy will seemingly self-generate and deplete much of the wealth of contemporary corporations. In other words, the small businesses and micro-businesses are beginning to unite in their collective thirst for corporate independence and decentralization of power centers.
The chink in that armor, of course, is when you have the legal perversion of "big corporations as individuals", thinking they have the same rights as human beings, including a right to life, no matter how errant their behavior is.
I've had friends ask for sodas without ice, and I've never seen them get any flak. The reason is that no matter how they cut it, they're making a huge profit off the sale of the soda. Note that fast-food chains make the bulk of their profit from sales of soda and fat-drenched starch sticks (not the sandwiches).
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mean "to conclude that a link is gone for good".
Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you.
I periodically run dead link checking software to perform this function with regards to my bookmarks, some of which I publish on my web sites.
There are many things that happen to links, such as redirects, but to conclude that a link is down because you get a 4xx or 5xx HTTP response is extreme. Sometimes sites go down for a period of time for various reasons. Such a link replacement process would need to have some kind of forgiveness mechanism. Further, sometimes links move elsewhere without the benefit of redirects--this replacement process therefore shouldn't replace links with "related" content, but the same content that's moved to another spot.
The bottom line is that the replacement process requires a step in the process where a human being reviews link change recommendations.
I run this software weekly. It's the best (and free) tool I've found for telling me the state of my links.
OK... this hacker has become a celebrity of sorts, who has got all kinds of publicity. Then, consider how many programmers these days are discriminated against for all sorts of reasons, like age, not having exact skill sets, and the like. Methinks the famous hacker has the great advantage.
Heck, I'd rather be this hacker than being the relatively unknown programmer. I'd love for 50% of those polled saying they would hire me!
Oftentimes, Wikipedia articles are indeed written by people who are very knowledgeable of the topic in the article, virtually sign their name to it, and end up being responsible for most of the subsequent edits (and making sure others don't add incorrect material). It's a matter of people taking their pet subjects, making articles out of them, and then continuing to nurture them over time. This approach sounds as good to me as what you describe for traditional encyclopedias.
hint to any Chinese out there, now would be an excellent time to invade the United States
No, now would be an excellent time for China to invade Taiwan.
Perhaps a new meta tag could suggest the addresses of peer servers or mirrors. And browsers would be updated to take this info into account. Just a thought.
First, the article confuses WWW with the Internet, so we don't know what architectural perspective they're referring to.
Then, this doozy: "'We're running up on some architectural limitations,' Gelsinger was quoted as saying." Ummm... which are?? At least give us a friggin' nutshell!!!
I'm thinking this article should win a "Worst of 2004" award.
our founding fathers had absolutely no intention of us ever becoming a democracy and were extremely afraid of every person having a vote.
Let's not discount the other founding fathers behind Amendments to the Constitution (not to mention state constitutions) that have moved us toward greater democracy. To say that the decisions of over 200 years ago were perfect and could not have changed is to say that no intelligent political thinkers followed them. And that's pap nonsense.
just remember, a democracy is 3 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what to have for dinner!!!
No, that's called majoritarianism. Modern liberal democracy includes constitutional protections for minorities and individuals. People need to stop these numbskull attacks on our democratic heritage.
The best way to fix problems with democracy is to add more democracy!
If you want support by opponents, develop fail-safe production _and_ disposal methods first. Stop deploying the archconservative apples/oranges tactic of comparison to coal. The problem with nuclear is the potential for far greater ecological damage, and unless you can mitigate that risk nearly entirely, fuggetaboutit.
Yeah, since Pickles Bush says that stem cell research might not ever lead to any cures, then it's just such a waste of time.
With regards to developing web applications: "Needless complexity" sums it up.
Oops... the first line should read "True democracy <> simple direct democracy"
True democracy simple direct democracy
True democracy = a democracy where the people's views are heeded in decision-making, whether by representatives or citizen initiatives, and that the rights of minorities and individuals are constitutionally protected, as in any liberal democracy. True democracy doesn't reverse liberal democracy, but rather enhances it.
these days there is no where to run, there is no one to fight against
The unintended beauty of globalism (well, unintended for corporatists) is that ultimately, the big corporations will have nowhere to run (except, perhaps to Bush's Mars), as 'global politics' (whatever that becomes) develops into a power that counteracts corporate power.
Not to argue against capitalism, per se, but capitalism hasn't done the "getting the food on the table for all" job either.
is also the basis social change that in its totality would amount to a global libertarian communist revolution
Well, since 'communism' has so much baggage, it might be better to speak of a "global social responsibility movement with libertarianism at its core".
the media and content distribution industries are genuinely screwed without government being there to "make the scary things go away"
These industries incorrectly assume that governments can make the entirety of the masses act in a perfectly legal manner to protect the intellectual property of a few wealthy corporations from going into "effective public domain". Whether the content industries lose fast or lose slowly, they still lose in the end.
but what I really think the Lefties should concentrate on is not throwing the whole system out but rather tweak how it works
I often argue the same thing, in that we need a "progressive left" that accepts market mechanisms and makes the best of them to achieve the social impacts they desire, even using the free market to defeat big corporate interests and overly centralized wealth/power... that's fair, indeed.
Playing devil's advocate... what are we to do with the vast number of communities already designed "optimally" for private transportation? Who bares the cost to totally redesign them? (I'm honestly interested in the response, whatever it is)
We are heading towards a situation where everybody in the world could carry the entire cultural content of the world in their back pocket (well I exaggerate), but we would disallow that for the profit of the very few.
But, it cannot be disallowed--control over what cannot be controlled is indeed the folly of contemporary big monied interests. They will lose, and the people (or rather, the public domain) will win, even if it makes all human beings "criminal" with regards to the notions of copyrights and intellectual property.
I think it's conscious, as people understand that their reputation is enhanced as they contribute. And who lends reputation? The other players in the collective, grasshopper. :)
You're right. Greed can exist in a collective mode, too, like in the commodification of particular types of software (like OpenOffice) for the common good, thereby saving lots of people from dumping more money into Microsoft's coffers. Greed doesn't only exist with regards to making money, but saving money as well.
If people want to band together loosely and develop ways to deny wealth to big corporations, they have this implicit right in a capitalistic, free society. If big corporations continue to do what they're doing, a second-tier economy will seemingly self-generate and deplete much of the wealth of contemporary corporations. In other words, the small businesses and micro-businesses are beginning to unite in their collective thirst for corporate independence and decentralization of power centers.
The chink in that armor, of course, is when you have the legal perversion of "big corporations as individuals", thinking they have the same rights as human beings, including a right to life, no matter how errant their behavior is.
I've had friends ask for sodas without ice, and I've never seen them get any flak. The reason is that no matter how they cut it, they're making a huge profit off the sale of the soda. Note that fast-food chains make the bulk of their profit from sales of soda and fat-drenched starch sticks (not the sandwiches).