Google's main invention was not just that they had the largest search index, but that PageRank was so good that you could hit "I'm Feeling Lucky" and skip the results set altogether and go straight to the #1 result. The other 450,000 results can go to hell, Google knows the #1 is good enough.
But wait a second, Google's main revenue model is AdWords, which doesn't get a chance to show up if you jump past the result screen. Turns out people aren't feeling lucky that much anymore, that Google's #1 answer isn't the be-all end-all it used to be.
So, it's possible to match Google's indexing scope, AllTheWeb.com has already gotten that one done and then some. But, the game is now once you return a large volume of sites, ranking them properly. To whomever comes up with a better formula than PageRank or presentation scheme than Google's trademark text-heavy interface goes the prize...
Like it or not, the president's administration (no matter who may be in power) has the relatively unchalenged authority to put whatever flight restrictions in place they want, which was clearly demonstrated on the days after 9-11-01 when no private aircraft of any kind could fly.
If the AOPA wants the president to have to be more accountable and timely with actions relating to TFRs, that's an issue that should be brought to Congress. The executive branch can't make laws, only suggest and approve them, and it only has the power to enforce laws on the book. If a law requires the FAA to follow certain rules when issuing TFRs, then they'll have to follow them or have their actions striken down by courts.
Our Constitution is designed to withstand a power-hungry president... simply strip most of his powers away changes to laws. If he's extremely out of line, there should be no problem getting 2/3 of each branch of Congress to create a veto-proof majority.
First, pilots know not to open the door under such situations. So what if they're killing people one by one... if they admit the hijacker into the cockpit while the plane is in the air, they're all dead.
The old standard hijack policies all went out the window on 9-11-01. They were based on the flawed assumption that nobody who knew how to fly an airliner would be a hijacker, so there was no harm in allowing the hijacker into the cockpit. Now, in-air hijacking simply cannot be tolerated.
If a hijacker ever takes control of a plane again in US airspace, everybody innocent on board is considered already lost, and the government is going to not think twice about shooting the whole thing down to prevent it from being flown into a target.
Therefore, the only chance for there to be survivors is to have the plane landed while still under control of the pilot. The pilot is going to declare an emergency and land as soon as possible, and I doubt anything is going to be able to convince them otherwise. The hijackers would have already killed everybody on the plane, including the pilot and co-pilot, if they were allowed to take the plane off its course.
All she'd have to do is tell the Bayes filter "this e-mail's good" to get every word in it put into the dictionary as a non-spammy word. What I'm suggesting is that every word that is not in the spell check be presumptively assumed to be spammy unless told otherwise.
The hope of the lock on the cockpit door is that the pilots will have enough time to realize something is going seriously wrong in passenger-land and land the plane at the nearest airport. Once the plane is on the ground, it's a whole lot easier to keep under control.
The NYC airports are never the closest place to emergency land unless that was already your destination. If you're over the Atlantic, you've got an easier path to Iceland, Greenland, Boston, MA or Portland, ME to the North, or Newark, NJ to the south. If you've got an unsure airplane, the last place people on the ground want you is flying over NYC.
Two or three languages wouldn't be that computationally expensive, and any user that is truely getting many languages of e-mail might want to create seperate accounts for each language the writers are using.
It seems like the latest attack on Bayes-based filters is to throw misspellings and random characters into the message. I'm surprised the major Bayes tools haven't linked to a standard spell-checker and consider really bad spelling a sign of spam...
Yep, many journalism editors consider "Web" as simply a shorter and more friendly word to use for "Internet", even though most geeks like Slashdot readers know that the WWW is something that runs over the Internet, and the two are releated but not the same.
The "World Wide Web" is the virutal network that runs on the Internet comprised of hyperlinked-together pages. If you display the WWW, your application is a browsers.
Now, I don't doubt that a number of Internet users don't open IE, Netscape, Mozilla, Opera in an average day and only use AOL, e-mail, ICQ, and the such... but those people are not "Web" users, they're just "Internet" users.
I'm not quite sure what this article is trying to tell us... "Internet" and "Web" are not interchangable words.
"Tabliod" in a technical sense is any newspaper that appears in the smaller format used by the NY Post, NY Daily News, Boston Hearld, San Francisco Examiner, and may other newspapers. It's the opposite of being "broadsheet" which is the size used by the New York Times, Boston Globe, USA Today and Wall Street Journal.
Most "tabloids" in the newspaper business aren't intentionally inacurate like the Weekly World News or The Onion are, but they are using the tabloid paper shape to try to make themselves more attractive to riders on trains and buses, and other people on the go. As a result, most tabloids also tend to go for the "stories that move newspapers" more than stories that are of "news value" that broadsheet newspapers seem to prefer. Like it or not, more common New Yorkers will spend their subway rides talking about the story that is on the front page of the Post than the Times on any day that the two papers disagree on the top story. Nobody admits to caring about J-Lo, but somehow if you put a picture of her on the front page the newspaper does sell more copies...
The NY Times gets caught printing all sorts of inaccurate information all of the time, just read their corrections and retractions if you want proof. It's not really a matter of the credibilty of the Post so much as it is the story selection.
The fact is, nearly every media outlet in the world is trying their best to be unbiased and credible (and those who aren't really easy to detect, such as Weekly World News and The Onion) yet most end up failing because the opinion of the editors and reporters almost always shows up in the story selection and placement. There will always be complants from people with views on the extreme sides of the scale that every popular media outlet will is biased against them for allowing the opposite side from them to speak. A news outlet is doing its job properly when it's getting roughly equal complaints from both sides.
You can't just toss a news artcle out just because it appeared in the Post. Their telling of the story might be a little more sensationalized, but that alone doesn't make it untrue.
The thing is, this isn't a case about violence, but violence against a specific racial group. If it was "Kill those gangstas" instead, the video game makers would be in the clear...
Let's put the research effort asside here and thing about the underlying concept here... basically, this is a distributed computing app being buried within webpages. Could commercial interests use this concept to get access to computing resources from their web users without telling them?
How can AG's prosecute anybody when the e-mail system still allows for a truely anonymous e-mail to be sent? If you can't trace it back to a real-person sender, there's no way of figuring out which AG's supposed to react...
Nope, we can't have a gradually adapting standard here... it has to be a hard cutover with a drop-dead date that'll be honored by major ISPs.
Right now, if you only accept authenticated e-mail, then you're just not gonna get any e-mail at all. Nobody's going to jump through special hoops just to reach you, they'll go to somebody who's easier to contact.
The only way you're going to get people to get off of SMTP is to simply break it. Just say, if you're using SMTP based sending, forget about reaching anybody with an @aol.com, @hotmail.com, or @yahoo.com. Those providers can also update their outgoing software to communicate on the new protocol as well. Essentially, that whole user base gets brought over into the new system, and if you wanna reach them you need to join it too.
Letting the old protocol continue will just cause there to be luddites, and those luddites will be encuraged by the spammers who don't want to be elimated....
Nope. He'll violate the spirit of the law without violating the letter of the law. CAN-SPAM has so many holes in it, it doesn't completely ban spam, just bans sending spam in certain ways.
As long as there's a way for Ralsky to send e-mail that isn't traceable back to him, there's no way to convict and punish him. Sounds like that's better fixed with tech instead of a law...
Security by law sits right next to security by obscurity on the list of things that help a bit, but by no means make a complete solution. Making spamming illegal isn't going to stop spammers, because sending spam by a virus-infected computer is already illegal since virus writing is illegal too... those laws haven't allowed us to stop running anti-virus programs, have they?
The bottom line is that SMTP has got to go. We need to get wide adoption of an e-mail protocol with authentication that the "from" address being claimed belongs to the sender of the message. That's the only way to make sure that spammers lose their ability to send e-mail without reprocussions. The face-value "from" address has to be much more relaiable than the current system lets it be.
There's no such thing as an ad that's truely banned from TV.
If the FCC doesn't like it, put it on cable where there's no government censorship, or air it from 10pm to 6am local time which is declared the "safe harbor" where anything goes because kids aren't likely to be watching.
If the major networks won't take it, air it on the minor networks. Sure, the major media companies control a lot of cable networks, but there's still a few standalone cable networks and until you've asked them all, you can't say there's nobody who will take your ad.
And, besides, there's always being talked about on/. That's good for something at least...
A large number of the spacecrafts we put up stay up in space, therefore skipping the need to land, and most things that do land tend to land on Earth which we know a little more about.
Seems like we've got a 50% failure rate for landing on Mars.
Slashdot Mirror
Google's main invention was not just that they had the largest search index, but that PageRank was so good that you could hit "I'm Feeling Lucky" and skip the results set altogether and go straight to the #1 result. The other 450,000 results can go to hell, Google knows the #1 is good enough.
But wait a second, Google's main revenue model is AdWords, which doesn't get a chance to show up if you jump past the result screen. Turns out people aren't feeling lucky that much anymore, that Google's #1 answer isn't the be-all end-all it used to be.
So, it's possible to match Google's indexing scope, AllTheWeb.com has already gotten that one done and then some. But, the game is now once you return a large volume of sites, ranking them properly. To whomever comes up with a better formula than PageRank or presentation scheme than Google's trademark text-heavy interface goes the prize...
Like it or not, the president's administration (no matter who may be in power) has the relatively unchalenged authority to put whatever flight restrictions in place they want, which was clearly demonstrated on the days after 9-11-01 when no private aircraft of any kind could fly.
If the AOPA wants the president to have to be more accountable and timely with actions relating to TFRs, that's an issue that should be brought to Congress. The executive branch can't make laws, only suggest and approve them, and it only has the power to enforce laws on the book. If a law requires the FAA to follow certain rules when issuing TFRs, then they'll have to follow them or have their actions striken down by courts.
Our Constitution is designed to withstand a power-hungry president... simply strip most of his powers away changes to laws. If he's extremely out of line, there should be no problem getting 2/3 of each branch of Congress to create a veto-proof majority.
First, pilots know not to open the door under such situations. So what if they're killing people one by one... if they admit the hijacker into the cockpit while the plane is in the air, they're all dead.
The old standard hijack policies all went out the window on 9-11-01. They were based on the flawed assumption that nobody who knew how to fly an airliner would be a hijacker, so there was no harm in allowing the hijacker into the cockpit. Now, in-air hijacking simply cannot be tolerated.
If a hijacker ever takes control of a plane again in US airspace, everybody innocent on board is considered already lost, and the government is going to not think twice about shooting the whole thing down to prevent it from being flown into a target.
Therefore, the only chance for there to be survivors is to have the plane landed while still under control of the pilot. The pilot is going to declare an emergency and land as soon as possible, and I doubt anything is going to be able to convince them otherwise. The hijackers would have already killed everybody on the plane, including the pilot and co-pilot, if they were allowed to take the plane off its course.
All she'd have to do is tell the Bayes filter "this e-mail's good" to get every word in it put into the dictionary as a non-spammy word. What I'm suggesting is that every word that is not in the spell check be presumptively assumed to be spammy unless told otherwise.
GPS over the USA is never scrambled to such a degree that somebody at an airport will be told they're in the NYC financial district.
The hope of the lock on the cockpit door is that the pilots will have enough time to realize something is going seriously wrong in passenger-land and land the plane at the nearest airport. Once the plane is on the ground, it's a whole lot easier to keep under control.
The NYC airports are never the closest place to emergency land unless that was already your destination. If you're over the Atlantic, you've got an easier path to Iceland, Greenland, Boston, MA or Portland, ME to the North, or Newark, NJ to the south. If you've got an unsure airplane, the last place people on the ground want you is flying over NYC.
Two or three languages wouldn't be that computationally expensive, and any user that is truely getting many languages of e-mail might want to create seperate accounts for each language the writers are using.
It seems like the latest attack on Bayes-based filters is to throw misspellings and random characters into the message. I'm surprised the major Bayes tools haven't linked to a standard spell-checker and consider really bad spelling a sign of spam...
Yep, many journalism editors consider "Web" as simply a shorter and more friendly word to use for "Internet", even though most geeks like Slashdot readers know that the WWW is something that runs over the Internet, and the two are releated but not the same.
That seems about right, as IM apps use a lot of overhead bandwidth even when they're not actively being used...
The "World Wide Web" is the virutal network that runs on the Internet comprised of hyperlinked-together pages. If you display the WWW, your application is a browsers.
Now, I don't doubt that a number of Internet users don't open IE, Netscape, Mozilla, Opera in an average day and only use AOL, e-mail, ICQ, and the such... but those people are not "Web" users, they're just "Internet" users.
I'm not quite sure what this article is trying to tell us... "Internet" and "Web" are not interchangable words.
"Tabliod" in a technical sense is any newspaper that appears in the smaller format used by the NY Post, NY Daily News, Boston Hearld, San Francisco Examiner, and may other newspapers. It's the opposite of being "broadsheet" which is the size used by the New York Times, Boston Globe, USA Today and Wall Street Journal.
Most "tabloids" in the newspaper business aren't intentionally inacurate like the Weekly World News or The Onion are, but they are using the tabloid paper shape to try to make themselves more attractive to riders on trains and buses, and other people on the go. As a result, most tabloids also tend to go for the "stories that move newspapers" more than stories that are of "news value" that broadsheet newspapers seem to prefer. Like it or not, more common New Yorkers will spend their subway rides talking about the story that is on the front page of the Post than the Times on any day that the two papers disagree on the top story. Nobody admits to caring about J-Lo, but somehow if you put a picture of her on the front page the newspaper does sell more copies...
The NY Times gets caught printing all sorts of inaccurate information all of the time, just read their corrections and retractions if you want proof. It's not really a matter of the credibilty of the Post so much as it is the story selection.
The fact is, nearly every media outlet in the world is trying their best to be unbiased and credible (and those who aren't really easy to detect, such as Weekly World News and The Onion) yet most end up failing because the opinion of the editors and reporters almost always shows up in the story selection and placement. There will always be complants from people with views on the extreme sides of the scale that every popular media outlet will is biased against them for allowing the opposite side from them to speak. A news outlet is doing its job properly when it's getting roughly equal complaints from both sides.
You can't just toss a news artcle out just because it appeared in the Post. Their telling of the story might be a little more sensationalized, but that alone doesn't make it untrue.
The thing is, this isn't a case about violence, but violence against a specific racial group. If it was "Kill those gangstas" instead, the video game makers would be in the clear...
Let's put the research effort asside here and thing about the underlying concept here... basically, this is a distributed computing app being buried within webpages. Could commercial interests use this concept to get access to computing resources from their web users without telling them?
How can AG's prosecute anybody when the e-mail system still allows for a truely anonymous e-mail to be sent? If you can't trace it back to a real-person sender, there's no way of figuring out which AG's supposed to react...
Nope, we can't have a gradually adapting standard here... it has to be a hard cutover with a drop-dead date that'll be honored by major ISPs.
Right now, if you only accept authenticated e-mail, then you're just not gonna get any e-mail at all. Nobody's going to jump through special hoops just to reach you, they'll go to somebody who's easier to contact.
The only way you're going to get people to get off of SMTP is to simply break it. Just say, if you're using SMTP based sending, forget about reaching anybody with an @aol.com, @hotmail.com, or @yahoo.com. Those providers can also update their outgoing software to communicate on the new protocol as well. Essentially, that whole user base gets brought over into the new system, and if you wanna reach them you need to join it too.
Letting the old protocol continue will just cause there to be luddites, and those luddites will be encuraged by the spammers who don't want to be elimated....
Nope. He'll violate the spirit of the law without violating the letter of the law. CAN-SPAM has so many holes in it, it doesn't completely ban spam, just bans sending spam in certain ways.
As long as there's a way for Ralsky to send e-mail that isn't traceable back to him, there's no way to convict and punish him. Sounds like that's better fixed with tech instead of a law...
Security by law sits right next to security by obscurity on the list of things that help a bit, but by no means make a complete solution. Making spamming illegal isn't going to stop spammers, because sending spam by a virus-infected computer is already illegal since virus writing is illegal too... those laws haven't allowed us to stop running anti-virus programs, have they?
The bottom line is that SMTP has got to go. We need to get wide adoption of an e-mail protocol with authentication that the "from" address being claimed belongs to the sender of the message. That's the only way to make sure that spammers lose their ability to send e-mail without reprocussions. The face-value "from" address has to be much more relaiable than the current system lets it be.
If you're that paranoid, don't install anything trackable in your car.
Does that include a license plate?
I thought the Troll mod was stranger myself...
Your Tivo already does that, it records a lite night infomercial on the Discovery Channel and they call it Showcases.
There's no such thing as an ad that's truely banned from TV.
/. That's good for something at least...
If the FCC doesn't like it, put it on cable where there's no government censorship, or air it from 10pm to 6am local time which is declared the "safe harbor" where anything goes because kids aren't likely to be watching.
If the major networks won't take it, air it on the minor networks. Sure, the major media companies control a lot of cable networks, but there's still a few standalone cable networks and until you've asked them all, you can't say there's nobody who will take your ad.
And, besides, there's always being talked about on
Production costs: $1.2 million
2 minutes of network airtime: $2 million
Mention on Slashdot: Priceless.
A large number of the spacecrafts we put up stay up in space, therefore skipping the need to land, and most things that do land tend to land on Earth which we know a little more about.
Seems like we've got a 50% failure rate for landing on Mars.