The system works like this: A software filters mails that repeatedly use the words that the IB has shortlisted. The more obvious keywords would include Jaish, Kashmir, Lashkar. Others are attack, kill, rocket.
Let us not forget "Fragged."...oh, wait... thought we were talking about a LAN party.
A lot of it, at least for me, has something to do with the idea of giving back. "Opensource", in various forms, has been around for a long time and essentially in the form of community effort. Whether that effort be aimed at building a house for a newly wed couple, or developing a "free" operating system, the underlying premise of being part of something "more" is there. What's rather unique about Opensource though is that it allows, in fact encourages, a community based on creativity and thought. It's a method of speeding up what happens with ideas and projects anyways, which is an evolution. One man takes a stick used for digging holes and sticks a piece of rock on the end of it to pound in wooden spikes, another replaces the rock with a metal head, now it can break rocks. Opensource simply acknowledges the fact that this happens with ideas, and embraces it, with the expectation that something better might come along much quicker.
We've built a country, almost a world, based purely on economy. If someone doesn't see where the money is coming from they shake their head puzzled. Then they return to their unsatisfying life and unfulfilling job trying to fill the holes in their life with wads of little green paper.
Opensource reflects and satisfies both facets of our human nature, altruism and selfishness. The question people should be asking is, "Why Don't You Do It Too?"
I'm a little hesitant on any "plug-in" that acts to merge a multitude of languages. While it seems like a nice idea, just how efficient would such a thing be?
Aside from that, and the obvious compatibility issues, what are the security issues of running various apps. client side?
The public has *no* right to dictate how Search Engines should operate. Ethically or otherwise.
Just as the public as *no* right to dictate how Slashdot should be run. Unix or otherwise.
They can complain, they can boycott, they can write scathing editorials on their mailing lists. *But* they should not be able to regulate it.
While the former is fine. And should be completely supported as grass roots movements, do we really want to see the FTC get involved in this?
I for one would like government regulation of the Net to be kept to a minimum. The red tape is irksome enough as it is.
And a lot of this is about principle... we *want* to have our privacy, and our freedom. But when a company wants their freedom as well, even if it is to be an ass by giving us skewed results on a search, we suddenly get all self-righteous saying "you can't do that!".
Tell me, would people be so upset about this if they were biasing search results based on which was the most l337, or is it just that they're trying to make a buck that offends you?
We can police ourselves. If a company is selling out placements, then spread the word. And if people have a mind to they'll avoid that site... but don't go crying to big brother to make them play by what you think is *fair*
Everyone's got a BS in somthing.
on
IANAL
·
· Score: 4
Nearly everyone in the "real world" is just faking it. Whether it be philosophy, business, or psychology. Trends are often successful because people *believe* them to be. And when they're not, well, that's just the general statistical flaws.
Anyone who claims authority on a subject *is* an expert to the rest of us for all intents and purposes. The only ones who would know otherwise are those who have more knowledge on that subject. And when talking about things about the future, or things we have *soft* evidence of, there is really no one who can be said to have more knowledge than anyone else. Only people who's past predictions have vindicated them.
But how many of us ever bother to look up someone's track record?
If we take bad advice from a teen thinking he's an *expert* then we only have ourselves to blame, for trying to take the easy route instead of looking up things for ourselves.
Wheter it is worthless to the advertiser or not is not the point.
It is worth it to the site as the old format of pay per click ads (seen on a number of warez and other such sites) were payed irregardless of wheter they user's intented to actualy see the ads or to help the site out.
Your reasoning is correct so far as a long term exposure is concerened. But it never even got that far since no one clicked through in the first place.
The anlogy isn't how well ads or micropayments pay a person, it's how willingly a person is to click through ads or make micropayments.
You can likely gauge the sucess of micropayments by comparing it to the sucess of online advertisments and decreasing it by a factor.
(People are more likely to click an ad then give a penny, right?)
That we don't even support people that way, its doubtfull such a thing will work.
But why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is and go ahead and try such a micropayment system himself? Prove the doubters wrong, if he thinks he's got a method that works.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a business major, but wouldn't that 500:1 ratio steadily increase assuming if people attempted to sell?
And so what if you will never have sex again?
What's he mean, "again"?
Porn on demand.
The system works like this: A software filters mails that repeatedly use the words that the IB has shortlisted. The more obvious keywords would include Jaish, Kashmir, Lashkar. Others are attack, kill, rocket. Let us not forget "Fragged." ...oh, wait... thought we were talking about a LAN party.
If somone uses Babelfish to "modify" their copyrighted website?
Wouldn't it be prosecuted here in the US under DMCA?
I don't think so.
Creating a patch for an existing piece of software isn't nesacarily volating the DMCA.
It might however be a violation of the license agreement. But that's somthing differnt.
A lot of it, at least for me, has something to do with the idea of giving back. "Opensource", in various forms, has been around for a long time and essentially in the form of community effort. Whether that effort be aimed at building a house for a newly wed couple, or developing a "free" operating system, the underlying premise of being part of something "more" is there. What's rather unique about Opensource though is that it allows, in fact encourages, a community based on creativity and thought. It's a method of speeding up what happens with ideas and projects anyways, which is an evolution. One man takes a stick used for digging holes and sticks a piece of rock on the end of it to pound in wooden spikes, another replaces the rock with a metal head, now it can break rocks. Opensource simply acknowledges the fact that this happens with ideas, and embraces it, with the expectation that something better might come along much quicker.
We've built a country, almost a world, based purely on economy. If someone doesn't see where the money is coming from they shake their head puzzled. Then they return to their unsatisfying life and unfulfilling job trying to fill the holes in their life with wads of little green paper.
Opensource reflects and satisfies both facets of our human nature, altruism and selfishness. The question people should be asking is, "Why Don't You Do It Too?"
I'm a little hesitant on any "plug-in" that acts to merge a multitude of languages. While it seems like a nice idea, just how efficient would such a thing be?
Aside from that, and the obvious compatibility issues, what are the security issues of running various apps. client side?
The real target is people sharing files, period. But rather than get into a discussion about what (used to) constitute fair use they need a demon.
I got a porn Demon for you
The public has *no* right to dictate how Search Engines should operate. Ethically or otherwise. Just as the public as *no* right to dictate how Slashdot should be run. Unix or otherwise. They can complain, they can boycott, they can write scathing editorials on their mailing lists. *But* they should not be able to regulate it.
Ah yes... hypocrisy... the eternal art form.
While the former is fine. And should be completely supported as grass roots movements, do we really want to see the FTC get involved in this?
I for one would like government regulation of the Net to be kept to a minimum. The red tape is irksome enough as it is.
And a lot of this is about principle... we *want* to have our privacy, and our freedom. But when a company wants their freedom as well, even if it is to be an ass by giving us skewed results on a search, we suddenly get all self-righteous saying "you can't do that!".
Tell me, would people be so upset about this if they were biasing search results based on which was the most l337, or is it just that they're trying to make a buck that offends you?
We can police ourselves. If a company is selling out placements, then spread the word. And if people have a mind to they'll avoid that site... but don't go crying to big brother to make them play by what you think is *fair*
Nearly everyone in the "real world" is just faking it. Whether it be philosophy, business, or psychology. Trends are often successful because people *believe* them to be. And when they're not, well, that's just the general statistical flaws. Anyone who claims authority on a subject *is* an expert to the rest of us for all intents and purposes. The only ones who would know otherwise are those who have more knowledge on that subject. And when talking about things about the future, or things we have *soft* evidence of, there is really no one who can be said to have more knowledge than anyone else. Only people who's past predictions have vindicated them. But how many of us ever bother to look up someone's track record? If we take bad advice from a teen thinking he's an *expert* then we only have ourselves to blame, for trying to take the easy route instead of looking up things for ourselves.
Wheter it is worthless to the advertiser or not is not the point. It is worth it to the site as the old format of pay per click ads (seen on a number of warez and other such sites) were payed irregardless of wheter they user's intented to actualy see the ads or to help the site out. Your reasoning is correct so far as a long term exposure is concerened. But it never even got that far since no one clicked through in the first place. The anlogy isn't how well ads or micropayments pay a person, it's how willingly a person is to click through ads or make micropayments.
You can likely gauge the sucess of micropayments by comparing it to the sucess of online advertisments and decreasing it by a factor. (People are more likely to click an ad then give a penny, right?) That we don't even support people that way, its doubtfull such a thing will work. But why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is and go ahead and try such a micropayment system himself? Prove the doubters wrong, if he thinks he's got a method that works.