He said that the robots.txt file is part of an entirely voluntary system, and that no real contract exists between the nonprofit Internet Archive and any of the historical Web sites it preserves.
Exactly right. The plaintiff is an asshat. The bottom line for publishing anything to the Web is: if you don't want it copied across the world, saved on people's hard disks (either automatically in a browser cache, or deliberately by the user), and potentially redistributed (after your initial act of publishing) for the rest of time, don't publish it to the Web. I'm not advocating the breach of copyright here - sure, I want credit of paternity for anything I put on the Web, at the very least. Pragmatically, however, I know that the Web (and the Internet at large) is a much more fluid medium. Somebody may save my webpage, copy a quote from it, download an image and use it as their desktop wallpaper, simply because they can. I can't stop them, and I'll never have proof that they did it, so I couldn't sue them if I wanted to. Therefore, I should exercise some common sense, and remember that the Web is a public medium, and if my work is so precious then maybe I shouldn't put it up there. Some web site owners want to use the power of the web to reach huge numbers of people, but they don't want to pay the price of such a fast and powerful medium. Once your words are out there, you may never get them back.
Are they suggesting that I eat my own brain to become really smart?!?
Clearly this would not work. As everyone knows, zombies eat nothing but brains are they are definitely somewhere toward to the bottom end of the bell curve... somewhere in between goldfish and professional football players.
Having said that, perhaps zombies are actually intelligent after all, but their super-advanced brains are able to put unimportant stuff like motor functions and speech onto a low thread priority, while the bulk of their superior intellects is grappling with some abstract mathematics or something. Just a thought.
I am not an economist, but it seems rational that any (capitalist) government would want a labour force larger than the number of jobs available, so that supply exceeds demand, and the jobs market becomes a buyers' market, thus keeping labour costs (i.e. wages) low in order to keep business profitable, and to help to economy grow. This, BTW, is why in all Western countries there is always a steady number of unemployed people: these are the victims of the government's need for cheap labour for business. IT is no different, and to support the growing numbers of technology businesses it is neccesary to have low-paid tech workers. Sucks I know. Welcome to the West.
(BTW, you're absolutely right about "good" tech jobs being hard to find - as long as supply exceeds demand, there will be a downward trend towards the lower end of the wage scale.)
... this only works if consciousness is based on computation, surely? It's getting into the area of metaphysics, but so far there's nothing to suggest that consciousness is based within the brain, let alone is computational.
I just checked my Geocities site statistics, and I now have 913 hits. If you're confused because I said 2137 hits, it's because that refers to my personal website.
Anyway, just thought I'd let you all know.:-) BTW, I thought a Slashdotting would be worth more than 913 hits, but just goes to show the minimal amount of bandwidth you get for a Geocities site. Or maybe it could be the 6MB ZIP file I have hosted there...:-)
Same here. It's indispensable as a troubleshooter. I still use regular Usenet though, and even though most newsgroups are long dead (e.g. alt.2600) some are alive and well, e.g. sci.physics. Personally I find it a nice example of what the Internet was like before the Web, where people traded info, insults and "binaries" over a purely text-based medium.
I know exactly what you mean. I only "surfed" for the first time in 1996, but the Web definitely felt less commercial, and more homely. Back then most of the web sites had a home-made quality to them, and viewing the HTML source showed an awful lot was written by hand (as opposed to web-authoring software, Flash or CGI).
People used phrases like "home page", "surf the net" and "send me e-mail", and they all take me back to a time when the Web was more innocent, before every company, shop, charity or celebrity had their own "web-presence". The Web felt less tainted by greed. Now the feeling I get from the Web is a lot more like that I get in a shopping mall, where I'm constantly having to question people's motives and the veracity of information I'm getting. In '96 you knew with 95% certainty that the Michael Jackson fansite you were checking out was put together by a dedicated fan with all the pedantry and attention-to-detail that goes with it, so you tended to trust what you were reading a bit more.
Ok, I'm not saying that the Web was good then, and it's nothing but evil now. I'm not saying that the fantastic, informative, enjoyable, insightful sites are not there - just that they're a bit harder to find. I'm not saying that the Web is no longer a tool for free-speech and free-thinking, because as long as the standards that define the Web remain public, open and [relatively] anonymous we will still have this amazing playground for the groupmind.
Right, I'd better go, my pizza's rapidly cooling.:-)
Re:Oh joy, "The Attack of the Easily Led"
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
(I'm sure many of us old farts cringe when recalling some of the lame ideas we supported when we were young and impressionable.)
Maybe you mean before you gave up on your ideals and gave in to compromise and conformity.
THINK, don't just follow the guy with the megaphone.
I agree. But it's equally true to say, "THINK, don't just follow the apathetic masses who have long since given up faith in the democratic system and the right of the people to choose whether they want an unjust war fought in their name."
One more thing: in the last paragraph you seem to mention socialists as being mentally incompetent, dishonest people. This perhaps says more about you than what you think it says about socialists.
The Internet. Originally set up as a way of maintaining communication after a widespread nuclear attack, it has become the fastest source of information on practically everything, a worldwide centre for commerce and a great way to meet people. (Just ask my girlfriend.:-D)
"In other news, General Motors win a successful injunction against Michelin for producing replacement tyres for their cars. Now only GM's proprietary brands may be used..."
Surely this must be anti-competitive? If a company providing the hardware has exclusive rights over parts needed to use that hardware, then they have a monopoly in the sense they can charge WTF they like for those consumables. It's ludicrous.
But then again, maybe market forces will decide this one... people will usually move away from the restrictive rip-off brands, as long as there is an alternative.
'The Founder from Los Angeles was staring at Case. "We monitor many frequencies. We listen always. Came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. It played us a mighty dub."
... "Listen," Case said, "that's an AI, you know? Artificial intelligence. The music it played you, it probably just tapped your banks and cooked up whatever it thought you'd like to--"'
So, the idea of AIs cooking up songs was predicted by Gibson himself. I just hope this one doesn't go haywire killing cops with a microlight...
I hate to put a dampener on things (this guy has perpetrated a really cool hack after all), but it's no more surprising that you can use a CCD from a digital camera for astrophotography than the widespread use of photosensitive chemicals (silver nitrate et al, IIRC) mounted on plastic film for the same means.
Basically, anything that detects photons will do the job. Sure, these photons are quite low-intensity, but that's no problem if you have a nice top of the range Schmidt-Cassegrain to help you along. Just point it at the star, start your motorised equatorial mount and wait as long as it takes for a nice clear image to pop up. (And you can take your time, you've got all night.) And even if this doesn't work too well, you can use photo-editing suites to pick out the finer details you were after.
Again, I'm not trying to steal this guy's thunder. (I'm probably just jealous of his 10" telescope after all;-).) But astrophotography is rather easy with almost any camera once you have a nice big telescope to sit it on.
I'm surprised no-one has said it yet...
on
Star Wars Origami
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"May the A4s be with you!"
Sorry.:-) (Here's some info on A4, just to make this post a bit more informative!)
Those are the best kind because I make the decision of who gets through to me.
But what if you use your email on Usenet? Or a web-based forum? What if someone you know gave your email to an old friend - they won't be able to contact you with an allow-only filter on your mail.
This kinda defeats the object of email - for people who barely know you, if at all, to contact you. Email is excellent at bringing together people from all over the world - what's the point if only people you already know can contact you using it? Wasn't the Internet supposed to surpass the letter and the stamp?
I'd rather put up with the spam. But if you really need to avoid it, do what I do: use two accounts: one for online publishing on the Web and sites like Slashdot, and the other for people I know. You get the best of both worlds.
Many pay phones,... are now used so infrequently that they cost money to operate.
You mean I've been putting my money into them for all this time for nothing?!
Seriously though, perhaps if phone companies want to perpetuate the phone booth they should do more stuff like this.
Sure, it can't be that good for profit, but it's bound to increase the popularity. But if you want to increase profit, there was a scheme a few years back where people listened to an advertisement at the start of a call to increase telco revenue. I've never seen (or heard) this done. Why not?
Slashdot Mirror
Bit of advice. Firstly, don't start your comment with a sentence fragment.
Also, try to use paragraphs. Don't group your sentences into ones and twos and call it a paragraph.
By doing this you are wasting the useful distinction between the sentence and the paragraph.
Sentences are grammatical collections of words that are easily digested by the human brain.
Paragraphs are collections of sentences that together build a picture and address a given communication task.
By abusing the language in this way you are making your comment difficult to read.
The brain falters on each new paragraph. It's a miracle if anyone gets to the end.
Countzer0interrupt
Sounds like a very expensive substitute for a little self-control.
Then again, who am I to talk? I'm posting this from work, and lunch finished hours ago...
Having said that, perhaps zombies are actually intelligent after all, but their super-advanced brains are able to put unimportant stuff like motor functions and speech onto a low thread priority, while the bulk of their superior intellects is grappling with some abstract mathematics or something. Just a thought.
I am not an economist, but it seems rational that any (capitalist) government would want a labour force larger than the number of jobs available, so that supply exceeds demand, and the jobs market becomes a buyers' market, thus keeping labour costs (i.e. wages) low in order to keep business profitable, and to help to economy grow. This, BTW, is why in all Western countries there is always a steady number of unemployed people: these are the victims of the government's need for cheap labour for business. IT is no different, and to support the growing numbers of technology businesses it is neccesary to have low-paid tech workers. Sucks I know. Welcome to the West.
(BTW, you're absolutely right about "good" tech jobs being hard to find - as long as supply exceeds demand, there will be a downward trend towards the lower end of the wage scale.)
Ahh, I just RTFA. Apologies for any time wasted, people.
I just checked my Geocities site statistics, and I now have 913 hits. If you're confused because I said 2137 hits, it's because that refers to my personal website. Anyway, just thought I'd let you all know. :-) BTW, I thought a Slashdotting would be worth more than 913 hits, but just goes to show the minimal amount of bandwidth you get for a Geocities site. Or maybe it could be the 6MB ZIP file I have hosted there... :-)
You had the big name commercial sites back then of course (e.g. Microsoft), but even sites like Yahoo! felt like they were made by a bunch of fanatical semi-professionals, as opposed to some big corporation with big buildings and big salaries.
People used phrases like "home page", "surf the net" and "send me e-mail", and they all take me back to a time when the Web was more innocent, before every company, shop, charity or celebrity had their own "web-presence". The Web felt less tainted by greed. Now the feeling I get from the Web is a lot more like that I get in a shopping mall, where I'm constantly having to question people's motives and the veracity of information I'm getting. In '96 you knew with 95% certainty that the Michael Jackson fansite you were checking out was put together by a dedicated fan with all the pedantry and attention-to-detail that goes with it, so you tended to trust what you were reading a bit more.
Ok, I'm not saying that the Web was good then, and it's nothing but evil now. I'm not saying that the fantastic, informative, enjoyable, insightful sites are not there - just that they're a bit harder to find. I'm not saying that the Web is no longer a tool for free-speech and free-thinking, because as long as the standards that define the Web remain public, open and [relatively] anonymous we will still have this amazing playground for the groupmind.
Right, I'd better go, my pizza's rapidly cooling.
I agree. But it's equally true to say, "THINK, don't just follow the apathetic masses who have long since given up faith in the democratic system and the right of the people to choose whether they want an unjust war fought in their name."
One more thing: in the last paragraph you seem to mention socialists as being mentally incompetent, dishonest people. This perhaps says more about you than what you think it says about socialists.
The Internet. Originally set up as a way of maintaining communication after a widespread nuclear attack, it has become the fastest source of information on practically everything, a worldwide centre for commerce and a great way to meet people. (Just ask my girlfriend. :-D)
"In other news, General Motors win a successful injunction against Michelin for producing replacement tyres for their cars. Now only GM's proprietary brands may be used..."
Surely this must be anti-competitive? If a company providing the hardware has exclusive rights over parts needed to use that hardware, then they have a monopoly in the sense they can charge WTF they like for those consumables. It's ludicrous.
But then again, maybe market forces will decide this one... people will usually move away from the restrictive rip-off brands, as long as there is an alternative.
So, the idea of AIs cooking up songs was predicted by Gibson himself. I just hope this one doesn't go haywire killing cops with a microlight...
"Sex isn't a reason to live, just the reason you're alive."
$10 per unwanted message? I could earn $1000 from my Hotmail account in a week!
And mother said I'd never be able to live on Spam...
</sarcasm>
I hate to put a dampener on things (this guy has perpetrated a really cool hack after all), but it's no more surprising that you can use a CCD from a digital camera for astrophotography than the widespread use of photosensitive chemicals (silver nitrate et al, IIRC) mounted on plastic film for the same means.
;-).) But astrophotography is rather easy with almost any camera once you have a nice big telescope to sit it on.
Basically, anything that detects photons will do the job. Sure, these photons are quite low-intensity, but that's no problem if you have a nice top of the range Schmidt-Cassegrain to help you along. Just point it at the star, start your motorised equatorial mount and wait as long as it takes for a nice clear image to pop up. (And you can take your time, you've got all night.) And even if this doesn't work too well, you can use photo-editing suites to pick out the finer details you were after.
Again, I'm not trying to steal this guy's thunder. (I'm probably just jealous of his 10" telescope after all
"May the A4s be with you!"
:-) (Here's some info on A4, just to make this post a bit more informative!)
Sorry.
This kinda defeats the object of email - for people who barely know you, if at all, to contact you. Email is excellent at bringing together people from all over the world - what's the point if only people you already know can contact you using it? Wasn't the Internet supposed to surpass the letter and the stamp?
I'd rather put up with the spam. But if you really need to avoid it, do what I do: use two accounts: one for online publishing on the Web and sites like Slashdot, and the other for people I know. You get the best of both worlds.
You mean I've been putting my money into them for all this time for nothing?!
Seriously though, perhaps if phone companies want to perpetuate the phone booth they should do more stuff like this.
Sure, it can't be that good for profit, but it's bound to increase the popularity. But if you want to increase profit, there was a scheme a few years back where people listened to an advertisement at the start of a call to increase telco revenue. I've never seen (or heard) this done. Why not?