Let's say my competitor is normally linked to from 10,000 sites that give it a PageRank of 5. Now I link to the site 1,000,000 times with the rel="nofollow" attribute on different sites.
When Google calculates the PageRank for my competitor it will look at the 1,010,000 links, throw out the 1,000,000 nofollow links, and calculate a PageRank of 5 from the remaining, valid links.
What did my 1,000,000 links accomplish aside from wasting my time, someone's bandwidth and their storage?
When the work enters the public domain in 90 or so years, and there are no more Rights to Digitally Manage, will the DRM allow complete access to the work?
No?
OK, just be sure to include a sticker that says "This product contains DRM that is the digital equivelant of the burning of the Library of Alexandria."
How? Google simply ignores PageRank for the nofollow rel attribute. It doesn't vote against the linked site or remove it from the index. Hell, Google still follows the link, it just doesn't count the linking site when calculating PageRank.
Both are theories, you are correct, but that doesn't make them equal. Only one of those theories provides falsafiable claims. One is widely accepted by the scientific community (a pretty cutthroat community at that - if someone did disprove evolution their name would be up there with Newton and Einstein, so there's plenty of incentive to try) the other has not passed peer-review.
Without being able to test a theory, it doesn't help us determine the nature of the universe.
As a man of faith, don't you think that's what God wants?
PageRank's power is in it being able to judge the popularity of a site based on the number of links to it. For individual installations, it seems like the inter-linking of pages would be less organic and therefore less useful for judging the best results.
Also, since it's on an internal network it would probably be just as (if not more) effective to apply PageRank based on the number of hits a page actually receives instead of the number of "votes" it gets.
JavaScript, used correctly, is good. Look at all the compliments Google gets on GMail and Google Suggest or what people are doing with unobtrusive DHTML.
If anything you should be encouragine this guy to write good JavaScript so you don't have to put up with the bad stuff.
... or adding "-comment -trackback" to your search, or accepting that a blog entry was most linked to because it was the best source of information for what you're searching for.
The problem is that you are clearly outlining a business plan, but the Free Software Foundation is a non-profit. You can accept tax-free donations AND money for goods and services.
A better way to do it would be to start the business and then donate proceeds to the FSF or Mozilla or whoever.
I use Instiki for my notes and can't live without it. Because it's a Wiki I can create WikiWords that force me to flesh out stuff that I might otherwise overlook. If you have a Mac or Linux the installation is super-simple, not sure how hard it is on Windows.
While I agree with a lot of what you said about Flash being overly maligned, I take issue with this:
2. Breaks Browser paradigm
Back/Forward buttons
You shouldn't even have a need thit back in a browser any more. The web has seriously advanced since the days of HTML 1.0 and Mosaic. If a site is laid out correctly, all desired information should be availble tthe user with one mouse click, removing the need for a back button. People need tstop thinking slinear and look at a site or project on an interactive three dimensional level.
For those that need this functionality, one can easy write some javascript that will make the back button on browsers inoperative and even bring up an alert dialog that blocks those buttons, or passes variables tflash tallow flash tacutally g"back".
The problem isn't the browser buttons, its the idea that a URI links to something and that it always links to something. The web was never linear, that was gopher. But when I want to send someone to buy something on your flash site, I don't want to send them a link and then tell them to click on "enter store" then select "doodads" and find "widget" on the third page. I want to send them a permalink to the widget and get on with my life, and I'll probably just Froogle for a widget and find it in a store that doesn't require me to jump through hoops.
It's not about buttons, it's about respecting the nature of the web.
If they were only selling modded XBoxes and not doing anything with copied games, I hope a geek group like the EFF defends them.
In a perfect world, it'd be easy to make a case that there are substantial, non-infringing uses for a mod chip, but it seems that convincing judges that copyright isn't an absolute property right is an uphill battle.
Treo: "The internet apps were not as feature filled and a lot more buggy and the O.S was not a real multitasking os. The terminal app sucked compared to the sidekick and there was no instant messaging included."
Sidekick: "has yahoo messenger,etc built in"
Hardware aside (although good hardware is important) the difference between the Treo and the Sidekick is that if the included terminal app sucks or there's no IM program, you can get new software.
That's not an option with the Sidekick, T-Mobile mistakenly thinks that after you spend $200 on a device they still own it. It's a good thing they have what you need built in, because if they didn't there wouldn't be anything you could do about it.
I would love a Sidekick, the form factor and styling are top notch, but until they offer an open platform there are better phones. (I have a Nokia 3650, FWIW).
"It all started on October 23, 2001 with the release of one of the most important products from Apple in its history."
Uh, no. It started when Tony Fadell had the idea of creating a digital music player and tying it to an online music store a few years before the iPod came out. Inside Look at Birth of the iPod on Wired News covers the stuff that happened before the iPod came out.
Skype is peer-to-peer, not point-to-point, meaning your VoiP data can bounce around a couple other hosts. Of course, it's all encrypted (the only encrypted IM client in wide use) so that shouldn't be too much of a concern.
The nice thing about it is that it busts NAT like it wasn't even there, and it "just works."
Re:activated carbon + alcohol beverage = water (?)
on
Hacking Vodka
·
· Score: 1
That's what I was wondering, whether it removed alcohol in addition to craptaste. Guess I'll have to stick to the expensive stuff.
On the plus side, I won't mix up the vodka pitcher and the water pitcher in the fridge.
1: He is upset that the article on Alexander Hamilton doesn't cover a dispute over his birthdate. By the time I finished reading the article (and most likely by the time I started) the article had a footnote added about his birthdate. This is the essence of the Wikipedia.
2: He keeps implying that "probably" is a bad thing, maybe he should read the article on Casinos and pay special attention to how they make their money.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiousity, how would k1ddi3 pronounce that last word?
You're right, I dont' get it.
Let's say my competitor is normally linked to from 10,000 sites that give it a PageRank of 5. Now I link to the site 1,000,000 times with the rel="nofollow" attribute on different sites.
When Google calculates the PageRank for my competitor it will look at the 1,010,000 links, throw out the 1,000,000 nofollow links, and calculate a PageRank of 5 from the remaining, valid links.
What did my 1,000,000 links accomplish aside from wasting my time, someone's bandwidth and their storage?
When the work enters the public domain in 90 or so years, and there are no more Rights to Digitally Manage, will the DRM allow complete access to the work?
No?
OK, just be sure to include a sticker that says "This product contains DRM that is the digital equivelant of the burning of the Library of Alexandria."
How? Google simply ignores PageRank for the nofollow rel attribute. It doesn't vote against the linked site or remove it from the index. Hell, Google still follows the link, it just doesn't count the linking site when calculating PageRank.
So again I ask, how?
Both are theories, you are correct, but that doesn't make them equal. Only one of those theories provides falsafiable claims. One is widely accepted by the scientific community (a pretty cutthroat community at that - if someone did disprove evolution their name would be up there with Newton and Einstein, so there's plenty of incentive to try) the other has not passed peer-review.
Without being able to test a theory, it doesn't help us determine the nature of the universe.
As a man of faith, don't you think that's what God wants?
PageRank's power is in it being able to judge the popularity of a site based on the number of links to it. For individual installations, it seems like the inter-linking of pages would be less organic and therefore less useful for judging the best results.
Also, since it's on an internal network it would probably be just as (if not more) effective to apply PageRank based on the number of hits a page actually receives instead of the number of "votes" it gets.
JavaScript, used correctly, is good. Look at all the compliments Google gets on GMail and Google Suggest or what people are doing with unobtrusive DHTML.
If anything you should be encouragine this guy to write good JavaScript so you don't have to put up with the bad stuff.
... or adding "-comment -trackback" to your search, or accepting that a blog entry was most linked to because it was the best source of information for what you're searching for.
The problem is that you are clearly outlining a business plan, but the Free Software Foundation is a non-profit. You can accept tax-free donations AND money for goods and services.
A better way to do it would be to start the business and then donate proceeds to the FSF or Mozilla or whoever.
That is, assuming you don't give a damn about people's comments.
Who posts comments on websites anyway? It's not like anyone reads them.
I use Instiki for my notes and can't live without it. Because it's a Wiki I can create WikiWords that force me to flesh out stuff that I might otherwise overlook. If you have a Mac or Linux the installation is super-simple, not sure how hard it is on Windows.
Until the age of 18 it is their parent's right and responsibility to determine to what their child is ready to be exposed.
Which is why I don't support any legislation fining stores that sell pudding to children.
It's not about buttons, it's about respecting the nature of the web.
If they were only selling modded XBoxes and not doing anything with copied games, I hope a geek group like the EFF defends them.
In a perfect world, it'd be easy to make a case that there are substantial, non-infringing uses for a mod chip, but it seems that convincing judges that copyright isn't an absolute property right is an uphill battle.
Treo: "The internet apps were not as feature filled and a lot more buggy and the O.S was not a real multitasking os. The terminal app sucked compared to the sidekick and there was no instant messaging included."
Sidekick: "has yahoo messenger,etc built in"
Hardware aside (although good hardware is important) the difference between the Treo and the Sidekick is that if the included terminal app sucks or there's no IM program, you can get new software.
That's not an option with the Sidekick, T-Mobile mistakenly thinks that after you spend $200 on a device they still own it. It's a good thing they have what you need built in, because if they didn't there wouldn't be anything you could do about it.
I would love a Sidekick, the form factor and styling are top notch, but until they offer an open platform there are better phones. (I have a Nokia 3650, FWIW).
In addition to the autopilot already mentioned, he might do well to get his hands on some Provigil.
If you feel that change needs to be made through legislation, you should check out IPac, a PAC supporting candidates that support a return to balance.
"It all started on October 23, 2001 with the release of one of the most important products from Apple in its history."
Uh, no. It started when Tony Fadell had the idea of creating a digital music player and tying it to an online music store a few years before the iPod came out. Inside Look at Birth of the iPod on Wired News covers the stuff that happened before the iPod came out.
Skype is peer-to-peer, not point-to-point, meaning your VoiP data can bounce around a couple other hosts. Of course, it's all encrypted (the only encrypted IM client in wide use) so that shouldn't be too much of a concern.
The nice thing about it is that it busts NAT like it wasn't even there, and it "just works."
That's what I was wondering, whether it removed alcohol in addition to craptaste. Guess I'll have to stick to the expensive stuff.
On the plus side, I won't mix up the vodka pitcher and the water pitcher in the fridge.
1: He is upset that the article on Alexander Hamilton doesn't cover a dispute over his birthdate. By the time I finished reading the article (and most likely by the time I started) the article had a footnote added about his birthdate. This is the essence of the Wikipedia.
2: He keeps implying that "probably" is a bad thing, maybe he should read the article on Casinos and pay special attention to how they make their money.
"The primary reason google 'scanning my email' doesnt concern me is that google has a reputation for being honest."
That reputation may not be well earned, somoene reported that his Gmail account was cancelled because he had warez in it. While copyright infringement is illegal, I don't want any of my service providers scanning stuff for illegal activity without a good reason.
So either way, what he said was stupid.
Good thing we got a president who doesn't say anything stupid instead...
Did anyone else notice that both Google and eBay posted $805.9 million in revenues in Q3? (spotted at Signal vs. Noise)
It's a good thing the movie industry hasn't tried exploiting weblogs.