When the subject of size vs relevancy was put to a vote, the overwhelming majority of SearchIRC users voted for returns sorted by relevancy.
That's no reason to *eliminate* the sort by size for those of us that know how to use a search facility. What's their excuse for not even having a 'sort results by channel size' button?
Or if you want to be a privacy nut, they -could- just turn on a transparently caching IRC server and log every channel that way. No bots needed, just need 1 node willing to let you plug in.
And I'd be immediately onto the admins, demanding that that server be delinked, or I chat elsewhere.
If Google wanted to setup their own informationally focused IRC network and caching/search -that-, no problem, and it might just have enough clout to take off.
Maybe. I wouldn't use it out of principle, but weird things happen with IRC. I can't see why Quakenet took off like it did, when there were plenty of other good networks that clans could use, so I guess (alas) a Google-monitored IRC network could well take off.
A lot of people seem to be missing the point: It seems unlikely that Google would archive ALL channel logs. I mean it'd be really rather unfeasible technically. In order to join all 372628424682 or whatever channels on the largest networks, Google would need about 50,000 bots logged on at the same time. At this point, the nets could easily see the Google bots, and ban them for network abuse.
More likely is that, as the summary suggests, Google may be trying to emulate the functionality of something like netsplit.de. I'd be quite happy if they did this, as although netsplit.de is quite good, its channel search leaves a lot to be desired, and always seems to miss out a lot of channels, seemingly unable to get a reliable channel list for a lot of networks (they're pretty hostile to/LIST's now, unfortunaely). SearchIRC is a terrible channel search engine, because it fails to rank the results in order of number of people in the channel, for some bizarre reason, making its search somewhat useless.
If Google could implement a nice, polished service similar to netsplit.de, I'd be happy. If they tried to log everyone's chats in every channel, I (and I supect most IRCops) would be most unhappy, and expect to see Google's bots get banned from nets and channels very quickly.
That's why I said that there should be legal recourse if something is published that is wrong, and can legitimately be shown as such in a court of law. What I'm trying to stress is that there should be no *technical* limitation on being able to publish whatever you want, eg. routers that can block/modify pages on-the-fly on the whim of some government employee, but that you should have to go through the legal system to right wrongs. That's a far safer method of maintaining order, and much less prone to abuse.
As to the matter at hand, there needs to be a very minimal amount of control over the Internet. Mostly, I think, people should be protected from libel
No. No no no. There needs to be *NO* control over the Internet, whatsoever. ANY control does 2 things:
- Sets a precedent that it's OK to censor things you don't like on the Internet - Inevitable puts in place systems that allow the censorship of Internet information
Both of those is very, very bad for the freedom of the Internet, and I'll never support it. There should be absolutely NO control by any external body (eg. Someone who doesn't administer the machine hosting the content) of the Internet, by technical means. By legal means, perhaps, but technically, there should be absolutely nothing that interferes with the freedom of information on the Internet.
Not really. Can't you look at it from another perspective? The way I see it, it's about whether or not the *website publisher* has the right to decide what you view whilst you're viewing *their* webpage, thereby using *their* bandwidth. If the ad agencies won such a case, there would be a precedence for a third party *forcing* you to accept that you can't use cracked ad-supported software on your machine, you must pay or view the ads.
Expect to be labelled an idiot who didn't read the website in the Mozilla IRC channel, a lengthy registration for Bugzilla, a wait of over a month until someone responds with something like "I agree with this idea! Could someone put it in please?", or maybe a "If you think it's such a good idea, YOU code it!", and then to hear nothing ever again. Good luck.
Frankly, virtually *nothing* is a good way to archive anything. Most materials will decay after a long period of time, and even if not, there could be a fire/breakin/flood/etc at your place of archive and you lose the media. The only really reliable way to archive something is to make 2/3 copies of it and place them in different areas.
The microwave transmission method that everybody keeps harping on has not been demonstrated to effectively WORK!!!
Yeah, but that microwave power plant in Simcity 2000 looked so cool, I think everyone wants one in their city. Let's just pray there are no mis-targetted beams:-)
Well yes, but surely that's the point? There's a world of difference between a boolean vote value and the ability to distribute your vote points between several candidates.
Nooope, with my ideal system you'd be allocated a certain number of points (say 10), then you'd be asked to rank *the candidates you wished to see elected*. You could rank all or none of them (although none would be wasting your vote). Your x points would then be distributed according to an algorithm using your votes, perhaps a logarithmic one. eg. Rank 3 gets half the points of rank 2, gets half the points of rank 1.
Hurm, I don't see any problem with that; simply award candidates that haven't been ranked 0 'points', and the person ranked highest the maximum number of points. Indeed, I don't really see why there's a need to be able to vote *against* someone in an election, or rank them 'low'; merely not ranking them would be showing your displeasure of seeing them elected, and anybody you ranked would be somebody you approved of getting into power.
See, if you ever improve the voting system in America (a long shot, I know) to something an order of magnitude better that involves actually *ranking* candidates instead of just having one vote (a deeply flawed system), having a touchscreen infastructure setup would be highly preferable; scanning in written rank numbers would cause serious problems. Also, with votes going straight into a computer, and if the computer system actually worked, that could make the vote result calculable almost immediately, with little cause for 'recounts' or complaints of human error.
If they buy Ask Jeeves, they'll be buying the one 'search engine' that's actually LESS useful then MSN search. Honestly, it's a poor man's Alltheweb metasearch, and the only interesting pre-defined question it's able to answer is Is Jeeves gay?
Real Media (requires Real Player) Real Media (requires Real Player)
Why the FUCK do companies insist on using Real fscking Player for streaming anything? Not only is the actual Real Player itself a piece of shit, the streaming protocol ISN'T EVEN VERY GOOD! Let's see... *starts 'streaming' via Real Crapper*
2 seconds of sound... pause *communicating* 3 seconds of sound... pause *communicating*
ARGHHHHHH!
Methinks a website should be setup for the advocacy of boycitting any website that insist on using fucking Real Player.
And no, I don't think 'Flash' is a viable alternative. It didn't work for me anyway.
Oh really. You are a good enough shot that you'd pick off the terrorist while he's got a box cutter to the pilot's throat? Who's gonna fly the plane with no pilot?
Surely the point is that, even if the plane crashed (the people on the aircraft would have died anyway), it *WOULDN'T HAVE HIT THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE*!
Distortion of results? Not only does MSN's search for Linux give rather, well, Linuxy results, but MSN's own site has information for 'switchers to Linux'!!!
What would happen if SCO claimed (perhaps they have) that they owned libc? A new free one would emerge quickly.
Actually, people would probably first ask SCO to prove it, as they have done with all their other frivolous claims.
Same story here. If M$ bought google, because of M$'s crediblity, users would "nominate" a different "king of searches".
No way. Remember when MS bought Hotmail? Did Hotmail die? Not to my knowledge; still going strong. In order for Google to be ousted, no matter who it was owned by, someone else would have to come along that provided something much better than Google and in all probability, Google would have to get significantly worse. That's how Google itself got in.
You can't take a cellphone of any sort into a secure US government facility. ANYTHING which might be capable of carrying data out of the building must be surrendered when you leave.
That probably explains the lack of braincells in the US government.
I've never understood people's obsession with getting their PCs quieter. My PC has maybe 6/7 fans in it all going at the same time, and it honestly doesn't bother me. If it was silent, other noise would piss me off. For example, human voices actually piss me off a lot more. I find it very hard to concentrate in multi-user environments like libraries. And these people are saying that a small whirring is unbearable?? They need to adapt to life.
Slashdot Mirror
You can learn and meet new artists through their music, and it's entirely Free as in an STD (-;
:-(
How do you get that for free?? She always charges me.
When the subject of size vs relevancy was put to a vote, the overwhelming majority of SearchIRC users voted for returns sorted by relevancy.
That's no reason to *eliminate* the sort by size for those of us that know how to use a search facility. What's their excuse for not even having a 'sort results by channel size' button?
Or if you want to be a privacy nut, they -could- just turn on a transparently caching IRC server and log every channel that way. No bots needed, just need 1 node willing to let you plug in.
And I'd be immediately onto the admins, demanding that that server be delinked, or I chat elsewhere.
If Google wanted to setup their own informationally focused IRC network and caching/search -that-, no problem, and it might just have enough clout to take off.
Maybe. I wouldn't use it out of principle, but weird things happen with IRC. I can't see why Quakenet took off like it did, when there were plenty of other good networks that clans could use, so I guess (alas) a Google-monitored IRC network could well take off.
A lot of people seem to be missing the point: It seems unlikely that Google would archive ALL channel logs. I mean it'd be really rather unfeasible technically. In order to join all 372628424682 or whatever channels on the largest networks, Google would need about 50,000 bots logged on at the same time. At this point, the nets could easily see the Google bots, and ban them for network abuse.
/LIST's now, unfortunaely). SearchIRC is a terrible channel search engine, because it fails to rank the results in order of number of people in the channel, for some bizarre reason, making its search somewhat useless.
More likely is that, as the summary suggests, Google may be trying to emulate the functionality of something like netsplit.de. I'd be quite happy if they did this, as although netsplit.de is quite good, its channel search leaves a lot to be desired, and always seems to miss out a lot of channels, seemingly unable to get a reliable channel list for a lot of networks (they're pretty hostile to
If Google could implement a nice, polished service similar to netsplit.de, I'd be happy. If they tried to log everyone's chats in every channel, I (and I supect most IRCops) would be most unhappy, and expect to see Google's bots get banned from nets and channels very quickly.
That's why I said that there should be legal recourse if something is published that is wrong, and can legitimately be shown as such in a court of law. What I'm trying to stress is that there should be no *technical* limitation on being able to publish whatever you want, eg. routers that can block/modify pages on-the-fly on the whim of some government employee, but that you should have to go through the legal system to right wrongs. That's a far safer method of maintaining order, and much less prone to abuse.
As to the matter at hand, there needs to be a very minimal amount of control over the Internet. Mostly, I think, people should be protected from libel
No. No no no. There needs to be *NO* control over the Internet, whatsoever. ANY control does 2 things:
- Sets a precedent that it's OK to censor things you don't like on the Internet
- Inevitable puts in place systems that allow the censorship of Internet information
Both of those is very, very bad for the freedom of the Internet, and I'll never support it. There should be absolutely NO control by any external body (eg. Someone who doesn't administer the machine hosting the content) of the Internet, by technical means. By legal means, perhaps, but technically, there should be absolutely nothing that interferes with the freedom of information on the Internet.
Hrm, are we talking about North Korea or South Korea? Korea isn't one country anymore.
*sigh*
Not really. Can't you look at it from another perspective? The way I see it, it's about whether or not the *website publisher* has the right to decide what you view whilst you're viewing *their* webpage, thereby using *their* bandwidth. If the ad agencies won such a case, there would be a precedence for a third party *forcing* you to accept that you can't use cracked ad-supported software on your machine, you must pay or view the ads.
Expect to be labelled an idiot who didn't read the website in the Mozilla IRC channel, a lengthy registration for Bugzilla, a wait of over a month until someone responds with something like "I agree with this idea! Could someone put it in please?", or maybe a "If you think it's such a good idea, YOU code it!", and then to hear nothing ever again. Good luck.
Frankly, virtually *nothing* is a good way to archive anything. Most materials will decay after a long period of time, and even if not, there could be a fire/breakin/flood/etc at your place of archive and you lose the media. The only really reliable way to archive something is to make 2/3 copies of it and place them in different areas.
The microwave transmission method that everybody keeps harping on has not been demonstrated to effectively WORK!!!
:-)
Yeah, but that microwave power plant in Simcity 2000 looked so cool, I think everyone wants one in their city. Let's just pray there are no mis-targetted beams
Well yes, but surely that's the point? There's a world of difference between a boolean vote value and the ability to distribute your vote points between several candidates.
Nooope, with my ideal system you'd be allocated a certain number of points (say 10), then you'd be asked to rank *the candidates you wished to see elected*. You could rank all or none of them (although none would be wasting your vote). Your x points would then be distributed according to an algorithm using your votes, perhaps a logarithmic one. eg. Rank 3 gets half the points of rank 2, gets half the points of rank 1.
Hurm, I don't see any problem with that; simply award candidates that haven't been ranked 0 'points', and the person ranked highest the maximum number of points. Indeed, I don't really see why there's a need to be able to vote *against* someone in an election, or rank them 'low'; merely not ranking them would be showing your displeasure of seeing them elected, and anybody you ranked would be somebody you approved of getting into power.
See, if you ever improve the voting system in America (a long shot, I know) to something an order of magnitude better that involves actually *ranking* candidates instead of just having one vote (a deeply flawed system), having a touchscreen infastructure setup would be highly preferable; scanning in written rank numbers would cause serious problems. Also, with votes going straight into a computer, and if the computer system actually worked, that could make the vote result calculable almost immediately, with little cause for 'recounts' or complaints of human error.
If they buy Ask Jeeves, they'll be buying the one 'search engine' that's actually LESS useful then MSN search. Honestly, it's a poor man's Alltheweb metasearch, and the only interesting pre-defined question it's able to answer is Is Jeeves gay?
Real Media (requires Real Player)
Real Media (requires Real Player)
Why the FUCK do companies insist on using Real fscking Player for streaming anything? Not only is the actual Real Player itself a piece of shit, the streaming protocol ISN'T EVEN VERY GOOD! Let's see... *starts 'streaming' via Real Crapper*
2 seconds of sound... pause *communicating*
3 seconds of sound... pause *communicating*
ARGHHHHHH!
Methinks a website should be setup for the advocacy of boycitting any website that insist on using fucking Real Player.
And no, I don't think 'Flash' is a viable alternative. It didn't work for me anyway.
Middle finger would seem like a good start.
Oh really. You are a good enough shot that you'd pick off the terrorist while he's got a box cutter to the pilot's throat? Who's gonna fly the plane with no pilot?
Surely the point is that, even if the plane crashed (the people on the aircraft would have died anyway), it *WOULDN'T HAVE HIT THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE*!
http://tech.msn.com/software/OS/Linux/
Distortion of results? Not only does MSN's search for Linux give rather, well, Linuxy results, but MSN's own site has information for 'switchers to Linux'!!!
What would happen if SCO claimed (perhaps they have) that they owned libc? A new free one would emerge quickly.
Actually, people would probably first ask SCO to prove it, as they have done with all their other frivolous claims.
Same story here. If M$ bought google, because of M$'s crediblity, users would "nominate" a different "king of searches".
No way. Remember when MS bought Hotmail? Did Hotmail die? Not to my knowledge; still going strong. In order for Google to be ousted, no matter who it was owned by, someone else would have to come along that provided something much better than Google and in all probability, Google would have to get significantly worse. That's how Google itself got in.
An MS-owned Google is truly to be feared.
What Uni are you studying at? Ours has 3 Linux labs with a combined total of maybe 100 Linux PCs, but 600?!
You can't take a cellphone of any sort into a secure US government facility. ANYTHING which might be capable of carrying data out of the building must be surrendered when you leave.
That probably explains the lack of braincells in the US government.
I've never understood people's obsession with getting their PCs quieter. My PC has maybe 6/7 fans in it all going at the same time, and it honestly doesn't bother me. If it was silent, other noise would piss me off. For example, human voices actually piss me off a lot more. I find it very hard to concentrate in multi-user environments like libraries. And these people are saying that a small whirring is unbearable?? They need to adapt to life.
Hurm. I thought tinitus was caused by listening to extremely loud noise for long periods of time... is that wrong?