Individual words will be useful showing some trends, but maybe counting phrases or how n-tuples of words could be better (AND harder). Sometimes "what's cool" is not a single isolated word.
With common words the language or the way society express itself could change in a way that doing simple word counting not show, at least, not show clearly.
Is more subtle than that, is not what you are searching for, but it tracks how you (or society) changes it way to express itself based in current trends, news, etc. That can be related or not with what you are currently searching in google.
In a way, it should track even how languages evolve, how new meanings are given to existing words (i.e. in the past would anyone think that defensive attack were not opposite words?:)
I wonder if this kind of analysis can be affected by people like me that without proper knowledge of english write in it:)
I have not seen yet when the problem was noted and for what amount of time the hole was open. In Forbes article they said that Mastercard started to warn their users the 3/feb. For how much time this had been going on?
And how the stolen cards will be managed? put them in a list of banned card numbers? emit 2Millon free cards for each one of the involved users? What if anyone in that big number says that some buying was done by the cracker and not by him?
In the other hand, 2 Millon CC numbers that can't be used could be used to make jokes to Nigerian scammers... if they still don't learned which key is caps lock maybe they can be fooled with this big time.
Annotating individual pages all over the web is a huge project. But to be useful it must be feeded with more than dedicated voluntary efforts. Thats why my first idea was to get comments from usenet, mailing lists, web sites, weblogs, etc (wikis is another great source), where site comments are already being generated, and at a very good rate. Whatever be the site that try this, should have a very big cache of internet, or at least, be connected via google api to the google engine (inside google there are a good amount of qualified information, more than their web cache you have also usenet, and google answers, and the capability to handle all of this in your own specific way).
But how clasify the big amount of comments that should exist for very visited sites? I suppose Google would come with AnnotateRank(TM) or some word like that, some measure on how trusty or relevant is a comment about a site, but I'm not sure how it will be. Maybe similar to page rank, counting links to the site where the comment is posted, or the specific post, or the size of the thread that generated that message for threaded comment systems, or moderation points in sites like slashdot.
In addition to annotating, giving the choice of the searcher to give a "weight" to comments, or counting hits could be useful also, but anyway, all of this could make things harder to understand and I bet that the key could be a very simple idea, changing a bit the point of view like was counting links pointing to a site the idea that gived relevance to web searches.
I think that specialized wikis for annotating sites (something like Wikipedia) is not good for something so dinamic as www, but, who knows, maybe some tricks could make this more useful, like searching the web with some tactics to load fast a big initial base of annotations (i.e. all comments with score 3+ in slashdot that talk about a site) or browser plugins to make things easier.
In this book Orson Card shows (in early 1985) about building some sort of online reputation, so well that it helped one (special) children to be the world leader (not read the later books, so here ends for me what happened about this).
I don't think that kind of thigs would work in the actual internet... is too broad, and mostly moderated by the community. Also there is no "central" place where all interesting things happens . Google is near that, but the way you use it is very specific and user driven. And Slashdot, well, is news for nerds.
At least in science fiction is a recurrent theme (I think the first book I read about this was "Fundation's Edge" from Asimov). A sentient live planet, a global mind or something like it.
In this context, well, if all those "cells" of a big network have a common concience, or as a whole gains it, well, will be similar. Like a collective mind in a global scale.
Still there is space for such a system, something that centralizes comments about sites. They could put a link for comments about search results, and link discussion sites (slashdot and similars, weblogs, usenet, etc) that show links to this sites as possible comments.
Mmmm I should check Google Labs before saying something that looks so obvios, they already doing it in Google WebQuotes
Not really, previous search engines did well what they were intended to do. They searched the web focusing in each site as isolated in the web.
But used the wrong point of view, they didn't see the web so interlinked that searching based in how much linked a site is could be a measure of how much desirable could be find that site.
Sometimes the better solutions are just viewing a hard problem from another point of view.
The gene is related of language, and art, like language, is a way of communication. If you communicate better, then your group (and the children you have in it) have better chances to survive.
And, of course, to be the only artist between a bunch of boring people should give some advantage with womens.
Maybe you can ensure that your children could be more creative, but I don't think a living person can be made more creative with gene therapy. That genes should have some influence on how the brain develops itself, or at least, the hemisfere related to creativity.
For a grown up adult I suppose that only can be done with brain surgery (something more like what happens in "Flowers for Algernon") or maybe some "intelligent" drug. And, well, for children and not so young the environment, of course.
Someone invent firecrackers for fun in holidays, and that leds to fire arms, cannons, and a lot of weapons. V1 bombs brings us space, satellites, new medicines, and maybe even the destruction of a future big meteorite that would wipe us all. Military networks bring us the internet. You can't say that some technology must be censored because it can be used by terrorists, enemies, or goes agaist the law of God, because you don't know what is left behind.
What if that manufacturing technique could be modified not to spread anthrax, but to spread a cure for it? Or a more powerful virus could be reingeneered to improve in some way humanity or cure genetical diseases? or self-conciuos machines to build a future utopia?
With censoring you are drawing a line between actual "safety" and the remote possibility of dangerous use of some technology. But remember that human extintion (or whatever you think could be objetively not desirable) could perfecty be in the "right" side of the line you drawn and not in the other.
From other point of view, what kind of investigations are probable to be done and published, with or without censorship? Most harmful investigation are done in military environments (from frieds or foes, in the end is all the same), and not likely to be published soon. The other at least don't have as an objetive destroying human life, and intermediate or accidental results, even if could be dangerous, could be useful in the end.
Want to make botulism toxin, one of the most toxic substances known?
Leave a bottle of garlic in oil [hc-sc.gc.ca] on top of your refrigerator for a few weeks.
Rigth... not slashdot editors will decide to censor posting, not by moderation, but deleting the completely, because could be used by terrorists.
Of course, that link will be used as excuse to close all medical publications that explain things that should not be done because could be dangerous to your health.
Whats next in the agenda? books/sites that talk about poisonous snakes or fungus?
Is hard to tell when something could be used for good or bad. Not publishing something maybe avoid that it could be used for bad, but also that it could be used for good.
With this kind of criteria, we would never know about atomic energy, space exploration, worldwide communications, modern medicine and almost everything that makes our current way of life.
Worst than this, if you don't publish, i.e. about a kind of disease, poison, etc, not ensures that "the bad guys" (whatever they are) will not discover it, and will put obstacles to the good guys that want to find a cure/solution/etc.
How you say when a mailing list (a message that goes to a lot of mail addresses) is a "normal" mailing list or spam?
If you force the remote machine to do a calculation, pay something or pass a turing test most mailing lists will disappear. If its implemented in some server (lets suppose Hotmail to fix ideas) then all users there that want to join mailing lists wich administrators don't want to afford whatever measure of this kind, well, would have to leave hotmail or open a mailing list account somewhere else.
Using white list could be a solution, but this also could limit the freedom of having your own mailing/distribution list.
And speaking of this, if you server is not ready to pass the MS test (i.e. it requires.NET installed), this could be more harmful. How you detect an spammer that don't have this kind of software/control installed from, say, someone with a normal mail server, that don't send spam but for any reason don't "upgrade" (if this is possible) the mail server?
maybe they issue an alarm, but as almost everyone should be stopping anything that says something about Norton Antivirus, Internet Security and so on that comes in so much spam, the announce don't reach all the intended targets.
... antivirus makers == virus makers. They creates they own market.
Seriusly, any one could have thinked that a worm that spread between the very few not firewalled sql servers around the globe could make such problem? Even if they know about the worm or some previous testing, I don't think they could predict what happened. Is easier to explain what happened that what could happen.
I suppose that should be in slashdot a review of the Lord of the Rings, even if was written a bit earlier than just 8 years ago. I suppose that not all book reviews are about books just published or about to be published. If the book is good, and the review add something to the community, should be ok.
"Many programmers put SQL code right on a web page" -- when was the last time you saw a select statement on a web page ?
I think the author mean in php/asp/other embedded languages pages, where finding plain sql code (instead of calling a library that hides for portability the sql code) is very common yet.
Of course, that don't display in the visitor browser, at least, not unless is intended (.phps) o "accidental" (the old::$DATA that showed the.asp code), or is part of the debugging process (visible or in the html generated code)
Slashdot Mirror
Next year's end instead of firecrackers will be only laser shows and giant screen projection on how used to be firecrackers.
At this rate, in 2005, kitchen knifes will be banned also.
Individual words will be useful showing some trends, but maybe counting phrases or how n-tuples of words could be better (AND harder). Sometimes "what's cool" is not a single isolated word.
With common words the language or the way society express itself could change in a way that doing simple word counting not show, at least, not show clearly.
Is more subtle than that, is not what you are searching for, but it tracks how you (or society) changes it way to express itself based in current trends, news, etc. That can be related or not with what you are currently searching in google.
:)
:)
In a way, it should track even how languages evolve, how new meanings are given to existing words (i.e. in the past would anyone think that defensive attack were not opposite words?
I wonder if this kind of analysis can be affected by people like me that without proper knowledge of english write in it
Good thing that with this denied most of their point. If google is so evil, would it respect that kind of tags?
And how the stolen cards will be managed? put them in a list of banned card numbers? emit 2Millon free cards for each one of the involved users? What if anyone in that big number says that some buying was done by the cracker and not by him?
In the other hand, 2 Millon CC numbers that can't be used could be used to make jokes to Nigerian scammers... if they still don't learned which key is caps lock maybe they can be fooled with this big time.
Annotating individual pages all over the web is a huge project. But to be useful it must be feeded with more than dedicated voluntary efforts. Thats why my first idea was to get comments from usenet, mailing lists, web sites, weblogs, etc (wikis is another great source), where site comments are already being generated, and at a very good rate. Whatever be the site that try this, should have a very big cache of internet, or at least, be connected via google api to the google engine (inside google there are a good amount of qualified information, more than their web cache you have also usenet, and google answers, and the capability to handle all of this in your own specific way).
But how clasify the big amount of comments that should exist for very visited sites? I suppose Google would come with AnnotateRank(TM) or some word like that, some measure on how trusty or relevant is a comment about a site, but I'm not sure how it will be. Maybe similar to page rank, counting links to the site where the comment is posted, or the specific post, or the size of the thread that generated that message for threaded comment systems, or moderation points in sites like slashdot.
In addition to annotating, giving the choice of the searcher to give a "weight" to comments, or counting hits could be useful also, but anyway, all of this could make things harder to understand and I bet that the key could be a very simple idea, changing a bit the point of view like was counting links pointing to a site the idea that gived relevance to web searches.
I think that specialized wikis for annotating sites (something like Wikipedia) is not good for something so dinamic as www, but, who knows, maybe some tricks could make this more useful, like searching the web with some tactics to load fast a big initial base of annotations (i.e. all comments with score 3+ in slashdot that talk about a site) or browser plugins to make things easier.
Baby, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore
In this book Orson Card shows (in early 1985) about building some sort of online reputation, so well that it helped one (special) children to be the world leader (not read the later books, so here ends for me what happened about this).
I don't think that kind of thigs would work in the actual internet... is too broad, and mostly moderated by the community. Also there is no "central" place where all interesting things happens . Google is near that, but the way you use it is very specific and user driven. And Slashdot, well, is news for nerds.
At least in science fiction is a recurrent theme (I think the first book I read about this was "Fundation's Edge" from Asimov). A sentient live planet, a global mind or something like it.
In this context, well, if all those "cells" of a big network have a common concience, or as a whole gains it, well, will be similar. Like a collective mind in a global scale.
Not read that one... but reminder me "Blood Music" of Greg Bear instead.
Put them in a planetary network and we well be real close to Gaia
Mmmm I should check Google Labs before saying something that looks so obvios, they already doing it in Google WebQuotes
Not really, previous search engines did well what they were intended to do. They searched the web focusing in each site as isolated in the web.
But used the wrong point of view, they didn't see the web so interlinked that searching based in how much linked a site is could be a measure of how much desirable could be find that site.
Sometimes the better solutions are just viewing a hard problem from another point of view.
The gene is related of language, and art, like language, is a way of communication. If you communicate better, then your group (and the children you have in it) have better chances to survive.
And, of course, to be the only artist between a bunch of boring people should give some advantage with womens.
As they did with perl, with Artistic Licence, I bet
Maybe you can ensure that your children could be more creative, but I don't think a living person can be made more creative with gene therapy. That genes should have some influence on how the brain develops itself, or at least, the hemisfere related to creativity.
For a grown up adult I suppose that only can be done with brain surgery (something more like what happens in "Flowers for Algernon") or maybe some "intelligent" drug. And, well, for children and not so young the environment, of course.
Someone invent firecrackers for fun in holidays, and that leds to fire arms, cannons, and a lot of weapons. V1 bombs brings us space, satellites, new medicines, and maybe even the destruction of a future big meteorite that would wipe us all. Military networks bring us the internet. You can't say that some technology must be censored because it can be used by terrorists, enemies, or goes agaist the law of God, because you don't know what is left behind.
What if that manufacturing technique could be modified not to spread anthrax, but to spread a cure for it? Or a more powerful virus could be reingeneered to improve in some way humanity or cure genetical diseases? or self-conciuos machines to build a future utopia?
With censoring you are drawing a line between actual "safety" and the remote possibility of dangerous use of some technology. But remember that human extintion (or whatever you think could be objetively not desirable) could perfecty be in the "right" side of the line you drawn and not in the other.
From other point of view, what kind of investigations are probable to be done and published, with or without censorship? Most harmful investigation are done in military environments (from frieds or foes, in the end is all the same), and not likely to be published soon. The other at least don't have as an objetive destroying human life, and intermediate or accidental results, even if could be dangerous, could be useful in the end.
Rigth... not slashdot editors will decide to censor posting, not by moderation, but deleting the completely, because could be used by terrorists.
Of course, that link will be used as excuse to close all medical publications that explain things that should not be done because could be dangerous to your health.
Whats next in the agenda? books/sites that talk about poisonous snakes or fungus?
Is hard to tell when something could be used for good or bad. Not publishing something maybe avoid that it could be used for bad, but also that it could be used for good.
With this kind of criteria, we would never know about atomic energy, space exploration, worldwide communications, modern medicine and almost everything that makes our current way of life.
Worst than this, if you don't publish, i.e. about a kind of disease, poison, etc, not ensures that "the bad guys" (whatever they are) will not discover it, and will put obstacles to the good guys that want to find a cure/solution/etc.
How you say when a mailing list (a message that goes to a lot of mail addresses) is a "normal" mailing list or spam?
.NET installed), this could be more harmful. How you detect an spammer that don't have this kind of software/control installed from, say, someone with a normal mail server, that don't send spam but for any reason don't "upgrade" (if this is possible) the mail server?
If you force the remote machine to do a calculation, pay something or pass a turing test most mailing lists will disappear. If its implemented in some server (lets suppose Hotmail to fix ideas) then all users there that want to join mailing lists wich administrators don't want to afford whatever measure of this kind, well, would have to leave hotmail or open a mailing list account somewhere else.
Using white list could be a solution, but this also could limit the freedom of having your own mailing/distribution list.
And speaking of this, if you server is not ready to pass the MS test (i.e. it requires
You can always put this in this light:
"If Dolly was a object oriented desktop, and Microsoft cloned it..."
and be ready to 700+ replies
maybe they issue an alarm, but as almost everyone should be stopping anything that says something about Norton Antivirus, Internet Security and so on that comes in so much spam, the announce don't reach all the intended targets.
... antivirus makers == virus makers. They creates they own market.
Seriusly, any one could have thinked that a worm that spread between the very few not firewalled sql servers around the globe could make such problem? Even if they know about the worm or some previous testing, I don't think they could predict what happened. Is easier to explain what happened that what could happen.
... Stuff that matters.
I suppose that should be in slashdot a review of the Lord of the Rings, even if was written a bit earlier than just 8 years ago. I suppose that not all book reviews are about books just published or about to be published. If the book is good, and the review add something to the community, should be ok.
I think the author mean in php/asp/other embedded languages pages, where finding plain sql code (instead of calling a library that hides for portability the sql code) is very common yet.
Of course, that don't display in the visitor browser, at least, not unless is intended (.phps) o "accidental" (the old ::$DATA that showed the .asp code), or is part of the debugging process (visible or in the html generated code)