Here in Michigan the license plate used to say "Winter Wonderland". A constant reminder as to how our weather sucks. To me this would be like Florida having a plate that said "Hurricane Target"
On the contrary... our plates in Florida also say, "Winter Wonderland."
"How much more black could this be? And the answer is... none... none more black."
-- SpinalTap (reminiscing on the color black.)
"So what's left exactly?"
on
Revolution OS
·
· Score: 2
CmdrTaco sitting on an inflated couch?
If cloaking becomes a problem...
on
Cloaking Detection?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
...why don't the search engines just play the game? Cloak themselves to look like regular users.
Download the robots.txt file through one set of IP addresses, with your normal user-agent header. Then request the actual pages using a Mozilla or MSIE user-agent ID, and using new IP addresses that cannot be traced back to google (or whoever) using DNS. Queue up URL's to be downloaded in a random order so that a really clever website can't detect your robot by examining traffic patterns. (I.e. maybe take a full day or week to download all the pages from a site.)
If they did all this, could someone still detect it's a search engine robot and use cloaking?
I never grokked why this stay-up-for-hours mentality became such a powerful meme with college students. I *always* did better by getting a reasonable amount of sleep than by staying up to cram. Give yourself a few extra days lead time for in-depth studying.
Maybe you retain knowledge differently than most? If it's a subject that bores me, I do what most people do, I wait until the night before the exam, and cram on the topics most likely to be tested. Perhaps pulling an all-nighter if the class is early the next day.
Procastination is a common problem. For example, I waited until the last second to post this response.
and they are using Angie Harmon's good looks to assist in swaying the emotions of people into accepting this bill further. If they were to have had some ugly lady bitching about being watched on camera - it would not carry as much weight as if some hottie was doing the bitching.
I dunno... if I was a senator, I would definitely be AGAINST any bill that might prevent me from illicitly taping Angie Harmon naked.
You know, there is an off chance that Jerry Sanders actually believes what he is saying, and is testifying in court that the states' remedy is bad because he (gasp!) believes that the states' remedy is bad.
Yeah, it's just incredibly hard to believe when the only people publically agreeing with Microsoft are those that are either in bed with Microsoft (certain high-ranking CEO's like Sanders), or are being paid by Microsoft to agree (economists hired for the trial).
Whereas the vast majority of those familiar with the computer industry feel they are full of shit.
This tends to make me skeptical of the veracity of Sanders's secret chicken recipe, errr... I mean comments on Windows and Microsoft.
a) doesn't have/want a credit card b) cares about privacy c) doesn't trust a faceless company d) wants to support their local businesses e) impulse buys and expects to have it in their hand _now_
Excuse me, this guy was complaining about finding a CD that was apparantly a few years old. 'e' doesn't apply here.
He also apparantly hates his local CD store. So 'd' doesn't apply here.
How is your local CD store not a 'faceless company.' Unless it's a mom & pop joint, I see no difference between Sam Goody or Musicland and say, amazon.com or cdnow.com. So 'c' is lame for most of us.
I care about my privacy, too. But I'm not a nut about it. I shop at sites with decent privacy policies.
Whether or not I shop online or offline for a CD is not going to affect my overall privacy too much. 'b' is moot.
Now as for 'a', I can't help you. You're going to experience several disappointments if you don't have a credit card, because there are many times when they are required to be able to do certain activities!
No, since you're apparantly online, and dumb enough to shop for music at a regular CD store instead of one of the dozens of cheap places online that offer wider selection.
For Pete's sake, CD's are still more expensive than tape cassettes. It's not about cost of manufacturing -- it's about gouging the consumer.
Devil's Advocate: If cars became cheaper to make, but they lasted longer and performed better, should they be cheaper than their predecessors, or should you pay more for quality?
Actually it isn't. This guy's poetry is still viewable on his webserver, or any other place he chooses to post it. Only the government has the power to truly censor your opinions. And they can do this through the threat of force. Google can not use the threat of force, AFAIK.
The act of censorship may be undertaken by any individual or entity with the power to halt publication - not just the government.
This is the typical response from someone who doesn't really understand the word "censorship."
Unless the government is doing the censoring, you will always have many ways to publish your opinion. Just because e.g. the editor of Time magazine decides not to print your message doesn't mean you've been CENSORED!
I notice some stories, like this one, are posted in areas that I should be seeing on my custom slashdot homepage, but never show up unless I view the "older stuff" link. And usually they have a very low number of comments, so I'm guessing not too many other readers are seeing them either.
The main rules of this new world are not ethic rules. As you can read in the emails I received, my happening has been censored by Google not for moral reasons but for economic ones.
Google provides their adword service so that related topics can be displayed next to real live search results. Making sure the ads returned are related to the search performed makes sense for google, its users, and its adword advertisers.
This guy wants to force unrelated poetry into your view instead. As a result, no one was clicking on his adword because it wasn't related to their search, and google's automatic ranking system lowered his ads due to the very low click-through rate. The guy could keep his ads on google, they just would very rarely be displayed due to their not being related to the searches.
A self-correcting system that makes sense.
Google rules.
I don't agree with the reasons why I was censored. I believe that the censorship rules of Google are not in accordance with the power and the importance of the tool they have created.
But it's NOT censorship! (Even ignoring for a moment that 'censorship' is really only when THE GOVERNMENT prevents you from saying something, not a PRIVATE COMPANY!)
Such a tool should be used more freely and should be self-regulated.
How the fuck could google be "self-regulated," since mySELF doesn't have control over google?
They are a private company, not your personal tool for serving poetry.
Every time I hear about something like this, I can't help thinking that these people are wasting their ingenuity on something completly worthless. If they brought that ingenuity to doing something worthwhile, who knows what they could do...
And every time I read a comment like this, I can't help thinking DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF A FUCKING HOBBY?!
Likelihood of confusion, anyone? (Pretty much the basis for traditional trademark law.) If they're putting other companies' ads on identifiable property in such a way as to imply that there's a non-fictional relationship between the companies
Riiiiiiiight. So you're saying whoever sold Samsung that ad can never replace them with another advertisement, because then people will confuse that new ad for Samsung?
Besides, this is ammo for their argument that they're not a monopoly - they're nice and work with everyone.
Uhhh... so their argument that they're not a monopoly is, according to you, that they not only have their software running on 95% of x86, but also on ppc computers as well?
And it's generally known as Mozilla 1.0. What's your point? Mine was that the guy was trying to make fun of Mozilla's version numbering scheme by incorporating the build and such, where MSIE's build numbering scheme is far more complicated.
DR DOS.
Apples vs. Oranges.
(You didn't back up your theory, so why should I backup mine?)
Now that Java is the biggest player in the industry, it seems Sun has gotten a bit greedy, and is trying to cash in on Java's popularity.
I'd like to know how much time and millions of dollars Sun has spent developing this free language, with a wonderful API, and plenty of source code available, before I start calling them "greedy."
If anyone's greedy here in this context, I sure as hell don't think it's Sun. Shit, they could make Java proprietary today, closing off all source access, requiring people to buy the JDK, etc... and it would still be popular, and you'd still have all their current and older Java-related stuff available for free.
In the past, Netscape browsers had Mozilla/x.x at the beginning of their user agent string. Then MSIE mimicked that in their early browsers so that sites built for Netscape would see MSIE 3.x as compatible (or whenever they started doing this). Now MSIE 6 continues this, with a user agent like:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Q312461)
The new Mozilla browser, which AOL calls Netscape 6, is showing a user agent string like this:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.9+)
So when the 1.0 version is released, are they really going to follow that same trend? Or will they use the user agent I propose here:
Mozilla/1.0 (No, really, this is Mozilla 1.0, not Netscape or shitty old MSIE pretending to be Mozilla.)
And just imagine when we get to Mozilla 4.0:
Mozilla/4.0 (No, not Netscape 4.x or MSIE 6.x, this is truly Mozilla 4.0... PLEASE, YOU MUST BELIEVE ME!)
Slashdot Mirror
The Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search. A Mersenne Prime is of the form 2^x-1.
Where's the fun in that? We already know those prime numbers exist!
Here in Michigan the license plate used to say "Winter Wonderland". A constant reminder as to how our weather sucks. To me this would be like Florida having a plate that said "Hurricane Target"
On the contrary... our plates in Florida also say, "Winter Wonderland."
But I think we're just making fun of Michigan.
"It's like space without the stars."
"It's like a pastel black."
"How much more black could this be? And the answer is... none... none more black."
-- SpinalTap (reminiscing on the color black.)
CmdrTaco sitting on an inflated couch?
...why don't the search engines just play the game? Cloak themselves to look like regular users.
Download the robots.txt file through one set of IP addresses, with your normal user-agent header. Then request the actual pages using a Mozilla or MSIE user-agent ID, and using new IP addresses that cannot be traced back to google (or whoever) using DNS. Queue up URL's to be downloaded in a random order so that a really clever website can't detect your robot by examining traffic patterns. (I.e. maybe take a full day or week to download all the pages from a site.)
If they did all this, could someone still detect it's a search engine robot and use cloaking?
It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine.
So anyone that has bought a machine from an OEM and wipes the drive is breaking the law?
I never grokked why this stay-up-for-hours mentality became such a powerful meme with college students. I *always* did better by getting a reasonable amount of sleep than by staying up to cram. Give yourself a few extra days lead time for in-depth studying.
Maybe you retain knowledge differently than most? If it's a subject that bores me, I do what most people do, I wait until the night before the exam, and cram on the topics most likely to be tested. Perhaps pulling an all-nighter if the class is early the next day.
Procastination is a common problem. For example, I waited until the last second to post this response.
and they are using Angie Harmon's good looks to assist in swaying the emotions of people into accepting this bill further. If they were to have had some ugly lady bitching about being watched on camera - it would not carry as much weight as if some hottie was doing the bitching.
I dunno... if I was a senator, I would definitely be AGAINST any bill that might prevent me from illicitly taping Angie Harmon naked.
Thank you!
You know, there is an off chance that Jerry Sanders actually believes what he is saying, and is testifying in court that the states' remedy is bad because he (gasp!) believes that the states' remedy is bad.
Yeah, it's just incredibly hard to believe when the only people publically agreeing with Microsoft are those that are either in bed with Microsoft (certain high-ranking CEO's like Sanders), or are being paid by Microsoft to agree (economists hired for the trial).
Whereas the vast majority of those familiar with the computer industry feel they are full of shit.
This tends to make me skeptical of the veracity of Sanders's secret chicken recipe, errr... I mean comments on Windows and Microsoft.
oh yes because nobody:
a) doesn't have/want a credit card
b) cares about privacy
c) doesn't trust a faceless company
d) wants to support their local businesses
e) impulse buys and expects to have it in their hand _now_
Excuse me, this guy was complaining about finding a CD that was apparantly a few years old. 'e' doesn't apply here.
He also apparantly hates his local CD store. So 'd' doesn't apply here.
How is your local CD store not a 'faceless company.' Unless it's a mom & pop joint, I see no difference between Sam Goody or Musicland and say, amazon.com or cdnow.com. So 'c' is lame for most of us.
I care about my privacy, too. But I'm not a nut about it. I shop at sites with decent privacy policies.
Whether or not I shop online or offline for a CD is not going to affect my overall privacy too much. 'b' is moot.
Now as for 'a', I can't help you. You're going to experience several disappointments if you don't have a credit card, because there are many times when they are required to be able to do certain activities!
Need I go on?
No, since you're apparantly online, and dumb enough to shop for music at a regular CD store instead of one of the dozens of cheap places online that offer wider selection.
For Pete's sake, CD's are still more expensive than tape cassettes. It's not about cost of manufacturing -- it's about gouging the consumer.
Devil's Advocate: If cars became cheaper to make, but they lasted longer and performed better, should they be cheaper than their predecessors, or should you pay more for quality?
Actually it is censorship.
Actually it isn't. This guy's poetry is still viewable on his webserver, or any other place he chooses to post it. Only the government has the power to truly censor your opinions. And they can do this through the threat of force. Google can not use the threat of force, AFAIK.
The act of censorship may be undertaken by any individual or entity with the power to halt publication - not just the government.
This is the typical response from someone who doesn't really understand the word "censorship."
Unless the government is doing the censoring, you will always have many ways to publish your opinion. Just because e.g. the editor of Time magazine decides not to print your message doesn't mean you've been CENSORED!
I notice some stories, like this one, are posted in areas that I should be seeing on my custom slashdot homepage, but never show up unless I view the "older stuff" link. And usually they have a very low number of comments, so I'm guessing not too many other readers are seeing them either.
What is going on?
Since from when of us has read a dictionary and studied the use of grammar?
By the way, you can treat this as my response to your response.
The main rules of this new world are not ethic rules. As you can read in the emails I received, my happening has been censored by Google not for moral reasons but for economic ones.
Google provides their adword service so that related topics can be displayed next to real live search results. Making sure the ads returned are related to the search performed makes sense for google, its users, and its adword advertisers.
This guy wants to force unrelated poetry into your view instead. As a result, no one was clicking on his adword because it wasn't related to their search, and google's automatic ranking system lowered his ads due to the very low click-through rate. The guy could keep his ads on google, they just would very rarely be displayed due to their not being related to the searches.
A self-correcting system that makes sense.
Google rules.
I don't agree with the reasons why I was censored. I believe that the censorship rules of Google are not in accordance with the power and the importance of the tool they have created.
But it's NOT censorship! (Even ignoring for a moment that 'censorship' is really only when THE GOVERNMENT prevents you from saying something, not a PRIVATE COMPANY!)
Such a tool should be used more freely and should be self-regulated.
How the fuck could google be "self-regulated," since mySELF doesn't have control over google?
They are a private company, not your personal tool for serving poetry.
Every time I hear about something like this, I can't help thinking that these people are wasting their ingenuity on something completly worthless.
If they brought that ingenuity to doing something worthwhile, who knows what they could do...
And every time I read a comment like this, I can't help thinking DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF A FUCKING HOBBY?!
Likelihood of confusion, anyone? (Pretty much the basis for traditional trademark law.) If they're putting other companies' ads on identifiable property in such a way as to imply that there's a non-fictional relationship between the companies
Riiiiiiiight. So you're saying whoever sold Samsung that ad can never replace them with another advertisement, because then people will confuse that new ad for Samsung?
Nice try.
That's OK - recent history indicates that you won't be prosecuted even if you abuse it :)
So what the hell is this years-long battle with Microsoft?
Besides, this is ammo for their argument that they're not a monopoly - they're nice and work with everyone.
Uhhh... so their argument that they're not a monopoly is, according to you, that they not only have their software running on 95% of x86, but also on ppc computers as well?
But it's generally known as IE6.
And it's generally known as Mozilla 1.0. What's your point? Mine was that the guy was trying to make fun of Mozilla's version numbering scheme by incorporating the build and such, where MSIE's build numbering scheme is far more complicated.
DR DOS.
Apples vs. Oranges.
(You didn't back up your theory, so why should I backup mine?)
Now that Java is the biggest player in the industry, it seems Sun has gotten a bit greedy, and is trying to cash in on Java's popularity.
I'd like to know how much time and millions of dollars Sun has spent developing this free language, with a wonderful API, and plenty of source code available, before I start calling them "greedy."
If anyone's greedy here in this context, I sure as hell don't think it's Sun. Shit, they could make Java proprietary today, closing off all source access, requiring people to buy the JDK, etc... and it would still be popular, and you'd still have all their current and older Java-related stuff available for free.
In the past, Netscape browsers had Mozilla/x.x at the beginning of their user agent string. Then MSIE mimicked that in their early browsers so that sites built for Netscape would see MSIE 3.x as compatible (or whenever they started doing this). Now MSIE 6 continues this, with a user agent like:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Q312461)
The new Mozilla browser, which AOL calls Netscape 6, is showing a user agent string like this:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.9+)
So when the 1.0 version is released, are they really going to follow that same trend? Or will they use the user agent I propose here:
Mozilla/1.0 (No, really, this is Mozilla 1.0, not Netscape or shitty old MSIE pretending to be Mozilla.)
And just imagine when we get to Mozilla 4.0:
Mozilla/4.0 (No, not Netscape 4.x or MSIE 6.x, this is truly Mozilla 4.0... PLEASE, YOU MUST BELIEVE ME!)