And yes, it is a totally lame attack but it works because:
* Way too many people use Acrobat Reader to read PDFs (monoculture) * IE can't be uninstalled, and no-one updates a browser they don't use.
End of story.
wow, I had no idea Adobe was doing that. I will have to get that Firefox PDF reader plugin ad uninstall Acrobat Reader if they are using IE. (I have the included IE version with XP and never upgraded it, like most non-IE users.) Acrobat has its own security problems and I reluctantly upgrade when I think there's a version without a major exploit left in it, but embedding IE is unacceptable.
Lots of people are finding ways to make money with music, movies, books, and other copyrightable things despite their works being freely available. In fact, many of them are also making money while encouraging the copying of their stuff. It can be done. It is being done.
How are people finding ways to make money with movies and books despite their works being freely available? Care to provide specific examples? Were any of the movies in theatres or books in bookstores? Answering those questions would actually be insightful.
The funny thing is IBM themselves inadvertently helped MS gain a monopoly by choosing it for the IBM PC. Though, they did consider an alternative (DR) before considering MS for the OS.
The most important part of this was the non-exclusive licensing agreement they signed with Microsoft in exchange for getting an OS for the IBM PC.
If I got to a news page via Google search, Google already has THEIR money. How does the newspaper make money? Selling ads doesn't work because whatever ad is on my page came from Google too.. and if the person wanted to go to that page they would have just done it already!
Google doesn't have any money unless a person clicks on the Google ad. There are no Google ads on a news search page.
Where Google does show ads, on search pages, ads are content based. News site ads are not.
News searches, news site ads, and Google content based ads are all incompatible and basically non-competitive.
Google search support and linkig to news sites is basically a free service and a benefit to any news site who gets a viewer via a link from Google.
So how valuable is a Google Ad [or ANY ad] on a page somebody already found with Google? ???
This is somewhat simple-minded.
Google offers content based advertising. Newspapers do not.
People searching for news and ad content are not compatible. Google doesn't evan have ads on the news search page.
When people see a news search result and click through to, let's say, Fox News, owned by the main complainer here, Murdoch, there is next to no chance that a Fox ad will be based on the content searched for.
It is amazing to be explaining such simple things to people on slashdot.
And what's in it for the newspapers that provide ALL the content on news.google.com ? Many people never move off that page. Where's their ads? Where's their revenue?
I've seen a few articles like that. I would expect it's a business relationship between Google and the news provider, perhaps splitting ad revenue. The news provider was not a news site, it was a news feed service as I recall.
The model they seem to have in mind is that articles will be indexed by google, and users will be able to click through to the articles for free after finding them in a google search, but newspapers will still be able to keep users from effectively getting a free subscription without paying for a subscription.
Both things you said are true. This is slashdot, and they are modding each other just as you said they would. Also, the Google plan to mollify Murdoch and others is as you described.
However, it has nothing to do with Google (other than Murdoch and his type allowing Google continued indexing of his rags with this plan). It doesn't change what Google does. It's a change of news sites from ad supported to paywall.
Look, I don't care what any site does. I'll make my decisions based on the worth of the site to me. All the news sites could go paywall as far as I'm concerned. Rush tells me everything I need to know anyway.:P
Nobody likes middlemen, especially middlemen who cut into their bottom line.
I like middlemen like Google that connects sites to searchers. The searchers like it. Who is this Nobody that doesn't like it, besides Murdoch of the News Corporation?
Google provides a link to the sites in the search results. Yes, they have ads, but how does that cut into the bottom line of a news site that people can find have an article with info the're looking for? When the searcher hits the site, they can click on the ads the news site is running if they want to. Without search results, few but regular readers would know about the article to be there.
And that is what Murdoch is really complaining about, lack of regular readers. He wants subscriber only access to news sites. He wants that if we want to find something, we do it within his pay walls.
I had a subscription to Wall Street Journal, but I didn't renew (renewal just came up) and told them it was specifically because Murdoch was citing success of Wall Street Journal subscriptions to justify his fantasy, and I wanted no part of justifying it.
Of course, it helped that my debit card had been changed from the one they on file (without my permission, I do not recall authorizing them to perform automatic renewals), otherwise they would have renewed it whether I wanted to or not. The only reason they communicated with me was because the card on file had expired and they needed me to supply them the new one.
I'm a little more careful who I provide my new card info to now.
Uhhhhh, you really RTFA? It doesn't matter what the server is running to get compromised by an SQL injection, does it? Could be MySQL running on a RedHat server. Could be SQL Server running on a Windows server. Why would an SQL injection be platform-dependent? After all, isn't that why SQL is ANSI and _relatively_ portable betwen platforms? I did say "relatively" of course::rollseyes::
Except when the attack depends on multi-statement lines separated by a : and a specific meta table to get names of tables and fields to insert the injection as with a recent exploit with Windows SQL Server.
You can't separate text, meaning and culture and consciousness. Which is why the problem of interpreting natural language is so hard; harder than even the article author seems to acknowledge.
I seriously doubt there is any understanding within context going on. They wouldn't have time for more than keyword searches (text and audio depending on medium) in any language.
Too much information probably indicates that attention is being diverted to cover unnecessary discussions. Think of it this way: you're looking for someone in a city. You could wiretap a few people close to that person and hope you catch some bit of conversation OR you wiretap the whole city guaranteeing you have every bit of conversation.
But having bureaucrats trying to fix the problem will have them not even consider the route that will get them the solution fastest.
You were modded Insightful, and you have no clue what you're talking about.
Not only does the NSA and other spook agencies do all you suggested, they heavily outsource to defense contractors to do much of it. So much for your bureaucrat nonsense, not to mention the top secret background checks vis a vis your outsourcing to foreigners comments.
Not to say spook employees aren't smarter than you anyway, as far as your alleged superiority to bureaucrats go.
But you got all the right wing talking points right.
They don't want to be wiped out any more than Israel does...
actually, I've seen enough talk about believing in the destiny of the end of the world that I wouldn't count on rational MAD behavior from everyone who can get their hands on an Iran nuke.
Or make your site subscription-based. Of course you might want to talk with the guys over at Slate first to see how well that works out...
He owns Wall Street Journal and bases much of his fantasies on the success of the Wall Street Journal subscription success.
I think that is a niche success but he thinks that if all the major news conglomerates charge then people will be forced to pay to read news.
I think there are few enough major US sources and they are having enough financial problems that he might be able to convince them to do it. But the British have a couple of news sources better than the States and he was over there trying to browbeat them into charging as well, or else he's afraid people will just switch to overseas sources.
All in all, he thinks subscription would work if he could convince the remaining conglomerates to close ranks, but smaller online ad based competitors will always jump in to take their place.
You need a boatload of automated tests so that it's actually relatively safe to go back and refactor things without breaking everything.
I know it's a fad for you guys to go on about refactoring things, but it's hard for me to believe that there are very many of you that aren't already breaking task interfaces down enough in initial coding, so I don't believe in reality refactoring even makes sense despite the constant talk about it, and two it's hard to believe the ones of you that mention this refactoring business as some sort of given work for a business unit of any appreciable size that uses the software.
Making a change to any software in production is a disruption to business, essentially a forbidden disruption for anything that isn't broke. And as I read the/. posts through the years referring to this refactoring state of mind, the theme is that of improving maintainability, which as I've posted through the years is complete hogwash. By changing the code and requiring complete retesting and signoff by the business, the time, effort, and disruption to the business that is alleged to be prevented has alrteady taken place, much more than any actual required business logic changes that eventually will be made.
Although I'm sure most of you must work for businesses of appreciable size, it's a very strange scenario indeed being touted that most certainly is unacceptable to any business.
I am sorry that I unload this on one random post mentioning refactoring as some given, it's just one of many in any/. programming thread.
A little irrelevant, but I have noticed my entire adult life, from the 70's onward since I've been paying attention to stuff like this, that educated estimates of something in the general population are amazingly often about 10%. This cannot be a coincidence.
I've often thought that 10% was a figure that these researchers come to because single digits are insignificant but still small enough that no one can easily disprove it. Or there is some natural law that correlates an anomaly in the general population to hover predictably around 10% to give the full benefit of the doubt.
But when a researcher announces a percentage for something that they're estimating in the general population, watch how often it will be about 10%.
And I really think it will be much more than about 10% of the time, btw.
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, it is a totally lame attack but it works because:
* Way too many people use Acrobat Reader to read PDFs (monoculture)
* IE can't be uninstalled, and no-one updates a browser they don't use.
End of story.
wow, I had no idea Adobe was doing that. I will have to get that Firefox PDF reader plugin ad uninstall Acrobat Reader if they are using IE. (I have the included IE version with XP and never upgraded it, like most non-IE users.) Acrobat has its own security problems and I reluctantly upgrade when I think there's a version without a major exploit left in it, but embedding IE is unacceptable.
They're gone.
rd
Lots of people are finding ways to make money with music, movies, books, and other copyrightable things despite their works being freely available. In fact, many of them are also making money while encouraging the copying of their stuff. It can be done. It is being done.
How are people finding ways to make money with movies and books despite their works being freely available? Care to provide specific examples? Were any of the movies in theatres or books in bookstores? Answering those questions would actually be insightful.
rd
The funny thing is IBM themselves inadvertently helped MS gain a monopoly by choosing it for the IBM PC. Though, they did consider an alternative (DR) before considering MS for the OS.
The most important part of this was the non-exclusive licensing agreement they signed with Microsoft in exchange for getting an OS for the IBM PC.
rd
If I got to a news page via Google search, Google already has THEIR money. How does the newspaper make money? Selling ads doesn't work because whatever ad is on my page came from Google too.. and if the person wanted to go to that page they would have just done it already!
Google doesn't have any money unless a person clicks on the Google ad. There are no Google ads on a news search page.
Where Google does show ads, on search pages, ads are content based. News site ads are not.
News searches, news site ads, and Google content based ads are all incompatible and basically non-competitive.
Google search support and linkig to news sites is basically a free service and a benefit to any news site who gets a viewer via a link from Google.
rd
So how valuable is a Google Ad [or ANY ad] on a page somebody already found with Google? ???
This is somewhat simple-minded.
Google offers content based advertising. Newspapers do not.
People searching for news and ad content are not compatible. Google doesn't evan have ads on the news search page.
When people see a news search result and click through to, let's say, Fox News, owned by the main complainer here, Murdoch, there is next to no chance that a Fox ad will be based on the content searched for.
It is amazing to be explaining such simple things to people on slashdot.
rd
The issue is that when you search for a news piece, Google make ad money FIRST right on the search page.
Google doesn't have any ads on the News search page. If you search on the main page, you get just a smattering of news links, if any at all.
Also, they only display a couple of lines with search words highlighted, just enough for a person to decide to click through to the content.
wow, you people act like you've never used what you're complaining about.
rd
Google has no ads on that page yet....
so is this pre-emptive complaining?
And what's in it for the newspapers that provide ALL the content on news.google.com ? Many people never move off that page. Where's their ads? Where's their revenue?
I've seen a few articles like that. I would expect it's a business relationship between Google and the news provider, perhaps splitting ad revenue. The news provider was not a news site, it was a news feed service as I recall.
rd
seriously, mr free market solution, how do you actually accomplish something like that?
that might have been his point.
Most people go to Google News and probably just skim the headlines, while relatively few people bother to click the link and read the full article.
Google has no ads on that page, so they're not clicking ad links there either.
rd
The model they seem to have in mind is that articles will be indexed by google, and users will be able to click through to the articles for free after finding them in a google search, but newspapers will still be able to keep users from effectively getting a free subscription without paying for a subscription.
Both things you said are true. This is slashdot, and they are modding each other just as you said they would. Also, the Google plan to mollify Murdoch and others is as you described.
However, it has nothing to do with Google (other than Murdoch and his type allowing Google continued indexing of his rags with this plan). It doesn't change what Google does. It's a change of news sites from ad supported to paywall.
Look, I don't care what any site does. I'll make my decisions based on the worth of the site to me. All the news sites could go paywall as far as I'm concerned. Rush tells me everything I need to know anyway. :P
rd
We all love Google Search, but could do without Google the content aggregator who monetizes everyone else's content.
They show a couple of lines with the search terms highlighted. When you click on the link you're taken to the news site.
Is there anybody here complaining that actually uses Google? And complaining about little text ads to the side of the page?
rd
Nobody likes middlemen, especially middlemen who cut into their bottom line.
I like middlemen like Google that connects sites to searchers. The searchers like it. Who is this Nobody that doesn't like it, besides Murdoch of the News Corporation?
Google provides a link to the sites in the search results. Yes, they have ads, but how does that cut into the bottom line of a news site that people can find have an article with info the're looking for? When the searcher hits the site, they can click on the ads the news site is running if they want to. Without search results, few but regular readers would know about the article to be there.
And that is what Murdoch is really complaining about, lack of regular readers. He wants subscriber only access to news sites. He wants that if we want to find something, we do it within his pay walls.
I had a subscription to Wall Street Journal, but I didn't renew (renewal just came up) and told them it was specifically because Murdoch was citing success of Wall Street Journal subscriptions to justify his fantasy, and I wanted no part of justifying it.
Of course, it helped that my debit card had been changed from the one they on file (without my permission, I do not recall authorizing them to perform automatic renewals), otherwise they would have renewed it whether I wanted to or not. The only reason they communicated with me was because the card on file had expired and they needed me to supply them the new one.
I'm a little more careful who I provide my new card info to now.
rd
that's not a coincidence.
Uhhhhh, you really RTFA? It doesn't matter what the server is running to get compromised by an SQL injection, does it? Could be MySQL running on a RedHat server. Could be SQL Server running on a Windows server. Why would an SQL injection be platform-dependent? After all, isn't that why SQL is ANSI and _relatively_ portable betwen platforms? I did say "relatively" of course ::rollseyes::
Except when the attack depends on multi-statement lines separated by a : and a specific meta table to get names of tables and fields to insert the injection as with a recent exploit with Windows SQL Server.
An explanation for 500 Thousand MS Web Servers Hacked
http://www.rdwrites.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3602
rd
You can't separate text, meaning and culture and consciousness. Which is why the problem of interpreting natural language is so hard; harder than even the article author seems to acknowledge.
I seriously doubt there is any understanding within context going on. They wouldn't have time for more than keyword searches (text and audio depending on medium) in any language.
You seriously believe that Big Brother watches you from a .mil hostname?
Put interesting stuff on your website and watch your weblog.
Too much information probably indicates that attention is being diverted to cover unnecessary discussions. Think of it this way: you're looking for someone in a city. You could wiretap a few people close to that person and hope you catch some bit of conversation OR you wiretap the whole city guaranteeing you have every bit of conversation.
what person? That's the whole point.
But having bureaucrats trying to fix the problem will have them not even consider the route that will get them the solution fastest.
You were modded Insightful, and you have no clue what you're talking about.
Not only does the NSA and other spook agencies do all you suggested, they heavily outsource to defense contractors to do much of it. So much for your bureaucrat nonsense, not to mention the top secret background checks vis a vis your outsourcing to foreigners comments.
Not to say spook employees aren't smarter than you anyway, as far as your alleged superiority to bureaucrats go.
But you got all the right wing talking points right.
rd
They don't want to be wiped out any more than Israel does...
actually, I've seen enough talk about believing in the destiny of the end of the world that I wouldn't count on rational MAD behavior from everyone who can get their hands on an Iran nuke.
rd
Do they make more doing this than setting up something legal?
short obvious answer, yes.
You had to check it, and you can uncheck it.
I never checked mine, but I appreciate the appreciation.
rd
Or make your site subscription-based. Of course you might want to talk with the guys over at Slate first to see how well that works out...
He owns Wall Street Journal and bases much of his fantasies on the success of the Wall Street Journal subscription success.
I think that is a niche success but he thinks that if all the major news conglomerates charge then people will be forced to pay to read news.
I think there are few enough major US sources and they are having enough financial problems that he might be able to convince them to do it. But the British have a couple of news sources better than the States and he was over there trying to browbeat them into charging as well, or else he's afraid people will just switch to overseas sources.
All in all, he thinks subscription would work if he could convince the remaining conglomerates to close ranks, but smaller online ad based competitors will always jump in to take their place.
rd
You need a boatload of automated tests so that it's actually relatively safe to go back and refactor things without breaking everything.
I know it's a fad for you guys to go on about refactoring things, but it's hard for me to believe that there are very many of you that aren't already breaking task interfaces down enough in initial coding, so I don't believe in reality refactoring even makes sense despite the constant talk about it, and two it's hard to believe the ones of you that mention this refactoring business as some sort of given work for a business unit of any appreciable size that uses the software.
Making a change to any software in production is a disruption to business, essentially a forbidden disruption for anything that isn't broke. And as I read the /. posts through the years referring to this refactoring state of mind, the theme is that of improving maintainability, which as I've posted through the years is complete hogwash. By changing the code and requiring complete retesting and signoff by the business, the time, effort, and disruption to the business that is alleged to be prevented has alrteady taken place, much more than any actual required business logic changes that eventually will be made.
Although I'm sure most of you must work for businesses of appreciable size, it's a very strange scenario indeed being touted that most certainly is unacceptable to any business.
I am sorry that I unload this on one random post mentioning refactoring as some given, it's just one of many in any /. programming thread.
rd
A little irrelevant, but I have noticed my entire adult life, from the 70's onward since I've been paying attention to stuff like this, that educated estimates of something in the general population are amazingly often about 10%. This cannot be a coincidence.
I've often thought that 10% was a figure that these researchers come to because single digits are insignificant but still small enough that no one can easily disprove it. Or there is some natural law that correlates an anomaly in the general population to hover predictably around 10% to give the full benefit of the doubt.
But when a researcher announces a percentage for something that they're estimating in the general population, watch how often it will be about 10%.
And I really think it will be much more than about 10% of the time, btw.
rd