For predictive search, you'll want to get friendly with the Solr TermsComponent, which serves up the terms present in your index along with their frequency.
If you want to get really fancy, you can log your popular queries—particularly the ones that have a high correlation with click-throughs.
That depends on how you are interacting with Solr. There are a number of good clients that integrate in to popular ORMs and can automatically post over updates to Solr as data changes in your application. I'm compiling a list of popular Solr clients over at https://websolr.com/guides/solr/clients.
For some popular example, there is RSolr or Sunspot for Ruby applications. Haystack is a good one for Django, and there are Drupal and Django extensions as well.
Yes, there are certain public services that apply to the entire public can only be financed by the entire public. Fire fighting pertains to me, because presumably at some point my house is at risk of catching fire.
Furthermore, I could see you extending that analogy by saying that ISOC provides services to all of dot-org that can only be financed through dot-org revenues. However, I say that this is flawed for two reasons:
Not all of ISOC's programs benefit all of dot-org. So why tax all of dot-org?
The ones that do benefit all of dot-org benefit more than just dot-org. So why tax just dot-org?
dot-org should be charged for the services that pertain to all of it: infrastructure and maintenance of the registry. Excess revenue should go toward price cuts.
As for the rest of ISOC's stuff, find the right people to charge.
My money for my dot-org should go to its maintenance. Excess revenue should be reinvested into the infrastructure or returned in the form of price cuts. If I want to pay to support IETF and ISOC's services, I will. What I don't want is for them to tax me without my permission by exploiting their monopoly on dot-org.
The same goes for whatever organization is awarded control of dot-org. In fact, the same goes to any organization, corporation, or government branch in general, but we'll get to those one step at a time...
the sad thing is that ANY corporation will sink to the same levels through the sheer pressures of capitalism.
Untrue. Corporations will sink to this level through the immorality and lack of accountability of the people that run them. Capitalism does not imply immorality. The two are completely unrelated concepts.
Second, a quick point, non-profits need less revenue because they strictly cover their economic costs. Level of profit or revenue does not imply anything about the quality of service. Anyway, it's irrelevant in this case since presumably the initial demand and revenue for either non-profits or for-profits will be the same.
Last, some opinions on who should run dot-org:
get some people in there who will keep on doing their job no matter what the stock market / investors / board of directors say. Note that above all three groups are interlinked. . . . one goes to shit and bye bye goes the rest of them.
Again, not quite true. The only things intrinsically linked in our market economy are buyers and sellers. One produces a good or service, the other consumes it. So in this case, it shouldn't really matter who provides the service in question (management of the dot-org registry), so long as they are able to provide said service to consumers.
Now, their policies will dictate what kind of service they provide, which is where we see advantages for choosing non-profits. Non-profits have no use for additional revenue once they have satisfied their economic costs (much in the way a firm running in a perfectly competetive market will operate at zero economic profit). This provides non-profits with the incentives to do two things:
Reinvest excess revenue back into the capital equipment of the service they are providing (managing dot-org)
Lowering prices, making their service much more attractive and affordable to the huge number of consumers in this market. Considering the democratic nature of the internet (and dot-org), I personally think this is important, as it lowers the barriers to entry into the internet namespace.
If you are familiar with the applications, you'll notice that this is the position of the IMS/ISC proposal. This is probably one of the most important points, besides technical implementation (which IMS/ISC also seems very strong on; heck, they run a root server, maintain BIND and DHCP, and have the grit to make all their code Open Source and publically accountable). This point of where the money goes is important because when the money starts going toward corporate pockets and non-profit programs, you can bet you won't see your better service, lower prices, and lower barriers to entry in the future.
Two additional points:
Funding non-profit programs (such as ISOC's) are important, sure. But I say let me keep the extra money from my dot-org beyond what it costs to maintain it, and I'll donate individually if I want to.
ICANN and the current status-quo insiders must be discouraged. The provider of dot-org services must be fully responsible to its consumers alone, not its vested interests in the perpetrators of the current DNS-profiteering mess.
Well, since our information is based off a few very vague articles derived from sources with questionable motivations I guess all we can do is wait.
Sure, there are obvious economic consequences. Sure, the idea of the Windows API implemented on a secure, POSIX-compliant OS is an attractive one.
But think about it, though, if you were an oppressive government with a history of censorship and an opportunity to exert control over your subjec^H^H^H^H^H^Hcitizens' computing experience at the OS level, would you be able to resist?
This is mostly just my distrust of oppressive governments and doubt that this OS will really be Open Source. I personally doubt I'd ever even run any government-produced operating system, unless it was fully Open Source. Like I said, though, all we can do is wait and see.
This thread's parent raises an interesting question of who you trust more.
My immediate first impression was that the Chinese government is undertaking the creation of a new operating system in order to exert more direct control over the spread of information. They already have quite a track record in that department...
How would this reduce the amount of traffic going through towers? The only traffic that wouldn't go through the tower is traffic that has enough turned-on phones running that software between you and the person you're calling. All other connections would hop through a few phones and go through the tower anyway.
At best, local calls wouldn't need to go through towers. This would vary based on the density of cell phone users in your area compared to the density of towers. At worst, one's range or reception from a distant tower could be improved.
Of course, there are also the security and power issues mentioned by others to take into consideration.
Neat idea, though. Maybe if everyone had a cell-phone with a great battery and an impressive range, towers for local calls, at least, could be eliminated and used just for outgoing calls. So the cell phone network would be one of separate P2P networks connected by towers.
That is, until the population is dense enough to send a call from New York to California.
I probably would have done a lot more goofing off in lectures if I had a keyboard for the thing, or if it had a decent SSH client;-)
Those Jornada's do rather suck, though. I haven't touched mine in months. I think HP is giving them to us because it's having a hard time selling them.
The tracking idea sounds a little bit interesting in concept, but so far it's all been poorly implemented. The whole project just seems like an elaborate resume-padder.
And who wants to physically track down CS students anyway?
None of this paranoia is applicable in this case.
The "tracking device" is a silly HP Jornada with a CF WLAN card. You have to keep it turned on to have it connected to the internet. There is a way to set the device to stay powered on while connected to the internet, but then you have to deal with battery power (which sucks) and whether you're in range of an AP.
It's not even BB's little cousin, I'd say. More like infant nephew. Little cousin would have better battery time and wider network coverage (and hopefully a better interface). BB would have something that was always on and functioned independantly of the network coverage.
I agree, the entire project has been pretty pointless so far. It's not that well organized or implemented. Plus, it's all web-based. The web is a pain on a PDA. I haven't touched my free PDA in months. It would be useful with a keyboard, then I could use AIM a bit more easily, and ssh. Oh, wait, there aren't any decent (or free) ssh clients for WinCE.
The idea of being able to locate friends is interesting... but these are all engineering students, so who wants to track them down on anything but aim?;-)
...why do the recording industries so fear that people will not pay the $10-20 for their products?
Because $10-20 is too much for the latest no-talent pop-band-of-the-day CD.
I'm a strong supporter of innovation as opposed to legislation in this case. As many people have already commented, additional legislation is not necessary in this arena. Copyright infringement is already illegal. If industries want to suffer less from piracy, they can already prosecute.
However, I would encourage industries to discourage piracy by making it less attractive, which they don't need legislation to enforce. The entertainment industry can lower the price of their products, therefore increasing the quantity demanded. What, you say CDs are expensive for a reason? Well, get rid of some of your overhead. Maybe if the recording industry started producing albums for bands with talent, they wouldn't have to spend so much on studios and mixing, for one.
There was another interesting post here regarding the overhaul of copyright law, basically proposing a multi-level system with different advantages and disadvantages. I agree that a review of the current system may be in order.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact all the big shops use Solr searching and not Drupal's built in search. Awesome no?
Including, in fact, the White House, which is on a LAMP stack of Open Source goodness, including Drupal and Solr. Awesome indeed.
For predictive search, you'll want to get friendly with the Solr TermsComponent, which serves up the terms present in your index along with their frequency.
If you want to get really fancy, you can log your popular queries—particularly the ones that have a high correlation with click-throughs.
Works fine, but hard to keep data updated.
That depends on how you are interacting with Solr. There are a number of good clients that integrate in to popular ORMs and can automatically post over updates to Solr as data changes in your application. I'm compiling a list of popular Solr clients over at https://websolr.com/guides/solr/clients.
For some popular example, there is RSolr or Sunspot for Ruby applications. Haystack is a good one for Django, and there are Drupal and Django extensions as well.
I don't think your analogy is quite accurate.
Yes, there are certain public services that apply to the entire public can only be financed by the entire public. Fire fighting pertains to me, because presumably at some point my house is at risk of catching fire.
Furthermore, I could see you extending that analogy by saying that ISOC provides services to all of dot-org that can only be financed through dot-org revenues. However, I say that this is flawed for two reasons:
dot-org should be charged for the services that pertain to all of it: infrastructure and maintenance of the registry. Excess revenue should go toward price cuts.
As for the rest of ISOC's stuff, find the right people to charge.
My money for my dot-org should go to its maintenance. Excess revenue should be reinvested into the infrastructure or returned in the form of price cuts. If I want to pay to support IETF and ISOC's services, I will. What I don't want is for them to tax me without my permission by exploiting their monopoly on dot-org. The same goes for whatever organization is awarded control of dot-org. In fact, the same goes to any organization, corporation, or government branch in general, but we'll get to those one step at a time...
first, an aside...
Untrue. Corporations will sink to this level through the immorality and lack of accountability of the people that run them. Capitalism does not imply immorality. The two are completely unrelated concepts.
Second, a quick point, non-profits need less revenue because they strictly cover their economic costs. Level of profit or revenue does not imply anything about the quality of service. Anyway, it's irrelevant in this case since presumably the initial demand and revenue for either non-profits or for-profits will be the same.
Last, some opinions on who should run dot-org:
Again, not quite true. The only things intrinsically linked in our market economy are buyers and sellers. One produces a good or service, the other consumes it. So in this case, it shouldn't really matter who provides the service in question (management of the dot-org registry), so long as they are able to provide said service to consumers.
Now, their policies will dictate what kind of service they provide, which is where we see advantages for choosing non-profits. Non-profits have no use for additional revenue once they have satisfied their economic costs (much in the way a firm running in a perfectly competetive market will operate at zero economic profit). This provides non-profits with the incentives to do two things:
If you are familiar with the applications, you'll notice that this is the position of the IMS/ISC proposal. This is probably one of the most important points, besides technical implementation (which IMS/ISC also seems very strong on; heck, they run a root server, maintain BIND and DHCP, and have the grit to make all their code Open Source and publically accountable). This point of where the money goes is important because when the money starts going toward corporate pockets and non-profit programs, you can bet you won't see your better service, lower prices, and lower barriers to entry in the future.
Two additional points:
Well, since our information is based off a few very vague articles derived from sources with questionable motivations I guess all we can do is wait.
Sure, there are obvious economic consequences. Sure, the idea of the Windows API implemented on a secure, POSIX-compliant OS is an attractive one.
But think about it, though, if you were an oppressive government with a history of censorship and an opportunity to exert control over your subjec^H^H^H^H^H^Hcitizens' computing experience at the OS level, would you be able to resist?
This is mostly just my distrust of oppressive governments and doubt that this OS will really be Open Source. I personally doubt I'd ever even run any government-produced operating system, unless it was fully Open Source. Like I said, though, all we can do is wait and see.
Do you think the chinese government cares about technology or open source? This smacks of censorship to me, not innovation.
This thread's parent raises an interesting question of who you trust more.
My immediate first impression was that the Chinese government is undertaking the creation of a new operating system in order to exert more direct control over the spread of information. They already have quite a track record in that department...
How would this reduce the amount of traffic going through towers? The only traffic that wouldn't go through the tower is traffic that has enough turned-on phones running that software between you and the person you're calling. All other connections would hop through a few phones and go through the tower anyway. At best, local calls wouldn't need to go through towers. This would vary based on the density of cell phone users in your area compared to the density of towers. At worst, one's range or reception from a distant tower could be improved. Of course, there are also the security and power issues mentioned by others to take into consideration. Neat idea, though. Maybe if everyone had a cell-phone with a great battery and an impressive range, towers for local calls, at least, could be eliminated and used just for outgoing calls. So the cell phone network would be one of separate P2P networks connected by towers. That is, until the population is dense enough to send a call from New York to California.
I probably would have done a lot more goofing off in lectures if I had a keyboard for the thing, or if it had a decent SSH client ;-)
Those Jornada's do rather suck, though. I haven't touched mine in months. I think HP is giving them to us because it's having a hard time selling them.
The tracking idea sounds a little bit interesting in concept, but so far it's all been poorly implemented. The whole project just seems like an elaborate resume-padder.
And who wants to physically track down CS students anyway?
None of this paranoia is applicable in this case. The "tracking device" is a silly HP Jornada with a CF WLAN card. You have to keep it turned on to have it connected to the internet. There is a way to set the device to stay powered on while connected to the internet, but then you have to deal with battery power (which sucks) and whether you're in range of an AP. It's not even BB's little cousin, I'd say. More like infant nephew. Little cousin would have better battery time and wider network coverage (and hopefully a better interface). BB would have something that was always on and functioned independantly of the network coverage.
I agree, the entire project has been pretty pointless so far. It's not that well organized or implemented. Plus, it's all web-based. The web is a pain on a PDA. I haven't touched my free PDA in months. It would be useful with a keyboard, then I could use AIM a bit more easily, and ssh. Oh, wait, there aren't any decent (or free) ssh clients for WinCE. The idea of being able to locate friends is interesting... but these are all engineering students, so who wants to track them down on anything but aim? ;-)
Because $10-20 is too much for the latest no-talent pop-band-of-the-day CD.
I'm a strong supporter of innovation as opposed to legislation in this case. As many people have already commented, additional legislation is not necessary in this arena. Copyright infringement is already illegal. If industries want to suffer less from piracy, they can already prosecute.
However, I would encourage industries to discourage piracy by making it less attractive, which they don't need legislation to enforce. The entertainment industry can lower the price of their products, therefore increasing the quantity demanded. What, you say CDs are expensive for a reason? Well, get rid of some of your overhead. Maybe if the recording industry started producing albums for bands with talent, they wouldn't have to spend so much on studios and mixing, for one.
There was another interesting post here regarding the overhaul of copyright law, basically proposing a multi-level system with different advantages and disadvantages. I agree that a review of the current system may be in order.