For some reason the auto-complete of a directory does not add a trailing backslash so that you can directly type in the first letter of a subdirectory. I always found that annoying.
Windows NT was only a little bit more reliable than Windows 95? That's not how I remember it. Win95 was a piece of crap built around DOS while NT was rock solid (with good drivers, I had no exotic hardware).
Not everyone is as technical as the readership of/. is, and not everyone who reads/. is at the same level either.
I don't mind simplification, but I do mind introducing errors.
To say 'no more mass media stories' would be incredibly flawed.
Mass media stories can be fine. I only want editors to look harder at the article before linking to it on the front page of/. Flawed technical articles will always exist, but at least here at/. the selection process could be more demanding.
Simplification is good, and it has occur in a non-technical article. But unfortunately this article had a few errors, and my main objection was to link to such a bad article on the/. frontpage. It's not news for nerds, and it's also badly done.
However, judging from the comments, people find the part on interviews interesting, and the article has created an insightful discussion after all.
Re:A Technical Look At Google
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
Thanks, looks promising. There were a couple of other/. stories on good Google employee interviews or reports. That's why I started nagging in the first place - "we" don't really need the umpteenth story aimed at people who know little or nothing about Google here on/.
When answering a search request, Google does not search the Internet. It searches its index.
The index does not reflect the Internet, but the World Wide Web. And only a small part of it, with the Deep Web being much larger.
Algorithms are not computer code.
Please don't give us more of those regular media articles on Google. They mostly suck when it comes to the technical side. And we have all heard about the free food a gazillion times.
Actually, they know very well most of what's out there and where it is. They are much better informed than whatever you can find in a/. article or by your average/. poster. They employ people who do nothing but tracking down sites and servers.
...and it suggests Google. How many people are searching for Google on Google?
Thinking about it, I probably don't want to know the answer.
I know that are a lot of mentions of Google on web pages, but shouldn't this service take into consideration what people are actually looking for? So, frequency of search terms instead of frequency of results.
In the older/. story linked to in the abstract, there is mentioning of using closed-caption texts in combination with the video material to enable searching for spoken texts. This should be relatively easy to implement
On the Internet pornography is often referred to as pr0n which is misspelled p0rn -- porn written with zero, a common style in a so called leet speak. One theory on the origins of this spelling is that it was devised to fool spam filters which blocked emails with the word "porn" from coming through to the recipient. However, since leet speak has performed similar mutations on a number of words, including those unlikely to feature in unsolicited commercial e-mails (0wned, r00t, n00b, d00d), it is likely that any transformation of "porn" to "pr0n" for spamming purposes is at best an independent invention.
Is that so? dict.leo.org came up with 'eerie' as a translation. May be even better. Anyway, there are words that cannot be properly translated, I agree with that.
The poster is not a provider. He gives his OK with distributing the message around the (net) world. If someone distributing the message charges his clients for delivering that message, that is fine. The client pays for getting a message, the provider has to pay for the infrastructure to do so.
From your point of view, do all newsservers have to be free? Does an ISP exploit a website owner because the ISP charges for transferring that HTML file?
It's part of the program, no net access necessary. Being able to quickly zoom in and out interactively is part of the fun. No website can really imitate that. But I wouldn't recommend it if it wasn't for the data included. It not only works for the US and Europe but for quite a few "exotic" (beware, Western ignorance at work:)) countries.
Encarta has the best computer atlas I've ever seen, though. That's the most valuable part, and I've heard of people buying Encarta just for that atlas.
well, for kaufland it quite works. it is quite large (although not as large as walmart) and their prizes are very good.
"Real" works in that way, too. I just meant -- there seems to be no need for a new supermarket unless it offers something new. It's a very competitive business in Germany. What Walmart does seems to be covered already. Maybe by Kaufland, too, I don't know it. I just visited kaufland.de and there even is one not too far away from me, but I had never heard of it.
At that time, many people were furious that a refined, functional interface had been replaced with a clunky, limited one. They were also furious that all those old dejanews.com links had just been trashed forever.
Google took over Deja and they restored an "emergency version" of a Usenet archive. It couldn't be done otherwise because Deja was "over" and had to shut down.
Nobody really gets why Google would remove features on purpose, without any specific necessity. They're not on the brink of bankruptcy (I hope).
3. There is no hard and fast definition that separates a cache from an archive. An archive is exactly the same thing as a cache with a lot of space and is slow to purge. Therefore if permission is given to cache usenet posts (which it obviously is since that's how it works) then permission is also being given to archive them. The only way to refute this is to come up with a rigid legalistic definition of what the difference between a cache that is open to the public and an archive that is open to the public is.
You could argue that when a news service by default does not delete postings you have an archive. Google Groups matches that description. They never delete unless a person explicitly asks to have his articles removed.
And note that a usenet news server can legally be open to the public to connect to (and some were, once upon a time when usenet was smaller and cheaper to spool).
There still are quite a few free and even open (as in 'free and no registration required') servers. Nothing reliable and fast with binaries, obviously. But you're fine with text-only groups.
5. The problem is that you have still failed to show the legal difference between what google is doing and what a news server is allowed to do. Therefore the "onus" on Google, while it is true that it exists, is already satisfied by simply pointing out that it is in the exact same legal position as a news server, which is already permitted to do what it does.
I agree with that. I can only hope that no court will make archives (as per my definition above) illegal.
Charging five cents per article read without any agreement with the original author, is not a valid fair use of a Usenet post.
It's a rather weird way of charging as a news provider, but I don't see why that shouldn't be fair use. The provider charges for its service, and that's the way it should be.
I realize that everyone on slashdot loves to give out parenting advice, even when they have no kids of their own, but it's important to realize that most of the crap that passes as "insightful" when it comes to parenting assumes that parents control everything with which their children come in contact, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In other words, it's worthless BS.
I've read some of the PTC columns and show summaries. They want a family TV evening free of violence, language and sex. They imply programming watched between 7 and 10 pm by the complete family.
I strongly disagree that stations should provide only the PTC's preferred kind of programming because I personally want my sex, language and violence. (If only 7th Heaven type-of programming would be shown I'd throw my TV set out of the window.)
But PTC is not about being able to park children in front of the TV. They want a different kind of TV at the time of the day when most people are watching.
Slashdot Mirror
For some reason the auto-complete of a directory does not add a trailing backslash so that you can directly type in the first letter of a subdirectory. I always found that annoying.
Windows NT was only a little bit more reliable than Windows 95? That's not how I remember it. Win95 was a piece of crap built around DOS while NT was rock solid (with good drivers, I had no exotic hardware).
Not everyone is as technical as the readership of /. is, and not everyone who reads /. is at the same level either.
/. Flawed technical articles will always exist, but at least here at /. the selection process could be more demanding.
I don't mind simplification, but I do mind introducing errors.
To say 'no more mass media stories' would be incredibly flawed.
Mass media stories can be fine. I only want editors to look harder at the article before linking to it on the front page of
Simplification is good, and it has occur in a non-technical article. But unfortunately this article had a few errors, and my main objection was to link to such a bad article on the /. frontpage. It's not news for nerds, and it's also badly done.
However, judging from the comments, people find the part on interviews interesting, and the article has created an insightful discussion after all.
Thanks, looks promising. There were a couple of other /. stories on good Google employee interviews or reports. That's why I started nagging in the first place - "we" don't really need the umpteenth story aimed at people who know little or nothing about Google here on /.
Yes, but they were talking about searching the Web, as far as I understood it from context.
When answering a search request, Google does not search the Internet. It searches its index.
The index does not reflect the Internet, but the World Wide Web. And only a small part of it, with the Deep Web being much larger.
Algorithms are not computer code.
Please don't give us more of those regular media articles on Google. They mostly suck when it comes to the technical side. And we have all heard about the free food a gazillion times.
Actually, they know very well most of what's out there and where it is. They are much better informed than whatever you can find in a /. article or by your average /. poster. They employ people who do nothing but tracking down sites and servers.
An older Photoshop version can be very cheap. Far from USD 300 or 650.
...and it suggests Google. How many people are searching for Google on Google?
Thinking about it, I probably don't want to know the answer.
I know that are a lot of mentions of Google on web pages, but shouldn't this service take into consideration what people are actually looking for? So, frequency of search terms instead of frequency of results.
In the older /. story linked to in the abstract, there is mentioning of using closed-caption texts in combination with the video material to enable searching for spoken texts. This should be relatively easy to implement
Is that so? dict.leo.org came up with 'eerie' as a translation. May be even better. Anyway, there are words that cannot be properly translated, I agree with that.
...would have been my immediate choice of translation. Ein unheimliches Schloß, a scary castle. Am I missing something?
The poster is not a provider. He gives his OK with distributing the message around the (net) world. If someone distributing the message charges his clients for delivering that message, that is fine. The client pays for getting a message, the provider has to pay for the infrastructure to do so.
From your point of view, do all newsservers have to be free? Does an ISP exploit a website owner because the ISP charges for transferring that HTML file?
It's part of the program, no net access necessary. Being able to quickly zoom in and out interactively is part of the fun. No website can really imitate that. But I wouldn't recommend it if it wasn't for the data included. It not only works for the US and Europe but for quite a few "exotic" (beware, Western ignorance at work :)) countries.
Encarta has the best computer atlas I've ever seen, though. That's the most valuable part, and I've heard of people buying Encarta just for that atlas.
well, for kaufland it quite works. it is quite large (although not as large as walmart) and their prizes are very good.
"Real" works in that way, too. I just meant -- there seems to be no need for a new supermarket unless it offers something new. It's a very competitive business in Germany. What Walmart does seems to be covered already. Maybe by Kaufland, too, I don't know it. I just visited kaufland.de and there even is one not too far away from me, but I had never heard of it.
At that time, many people were furious that a refined, functional interface had been replaced with a clunky, limited one. They were also furious that all those old dejanews.com links had just been trashed forever.
Google took over Deja and they restored an "emergency version" of a Usenet archive. It couldn't be done otherwise because Deja was "over" and had to shut down.
Nobody really gets why Google would remove features on purpose, without any specific necessity. They're not on the brink of bankruptcy (I hope).
Yes, but in the end GG created a better interface. Now they've worsened it, for the time being. People worry.
... and all have the classic interface, rather than the new one.
But obviously not for long.
However, I'm sure that with enough shouting, they'll give us an additional classic version.
Didn't some student not too long ago research what made a "good newsgroup"? They should put his research into the search parameters somewhow.
Sounds interesting. Do you have a link or some keywords to search for?
3. There is no hard and fast definition that separates a cache from an archive. An archive is exactly the same thing as a cache with a lot of space and is slow to purge. Therefore if permission is given to cache usenet posts (which it obviously is since that's how it works) then permission is also being given to archive them. The only way to refute this is to come up with a rigid legalistic definition of what the difference between a cache that is open to the public and an archive that is open to the public is.
You could argue that when a news service by default does not delete postings you have an archive. Google Groups matches that description. They never delete unless a person explicitly asks to have his articles removed.
And note that a usenet news server can legally be open to the public to connect to (and some were, once upon a time when usenet was smaller and cheaper to spool).
There still are quite a few free and even open (as in 'free and no registration required') servers. Nothing reliable and fast with binaries, obviously. But you're fine with text-only groups.
5. The problem is that you have still failed to show the legal difference between what google is doing and what a news server is allowed to do. Therefore the "onus" on Google, while it is true that it exists, is already satisfied by simply pointing out that it is in the exact same legal position as a news server, which is already permitted to do what it does.
I agree with that. I can only hope that no court will make archives (as per my definition above) illegal.
Charging five cents per article read without any agreement with the original author, is not a valid fair use of a Usenet post.
It's a rather weird way of charging as a news provider, but I don't see why that shouldn't be fair use. The provider charges for its service, and that's the way it should be.
I realize that everyone on slashdot loves to give out parenting advice, even when they have no kids of their own, but it's important to realize that most of the crap that passes as "insightful" when it comes to parenting assumes that parents control everything with which their children come in contact, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In other words, it's worthless BS.
I've read some of the PTC columns and show summaries. They want a family TV evening free of violence, language and sex. They imply programming watched between 7 and 10 pm by the complete family.
I strongly disagree that stations should provide only the PTC's preferred kind of programming because I personally want my sex, language and violence. (If only 7th Heaven type-of programming would be shown I'd throw my TV set out of the window.)
But PTC is not about being able to park children in front of the TV. They want a different kind of TV at the time of the day when most people are watching.