"That's not a job that can be handled by a single network appliance"
Umm... when my friend and I started an ISP in Utah in.... wait for it.... 1997.... this kind of filtering was already in demand by local customers and easily done by the use of a proxy server. See, you can take any type of source list (IPs, domains, whatever) that you want and give it to the proxy server and filter access to it.
Even easier (see, we've advanced since 1997) is to put your list into a DNS server set and then you can give your clients who want (if it's a domain list, which it should really be) filtering on their account that domain server set as their account's DNS.
I would suspect that in this particular case, the easiest thing is going to be for the state AG to setup a set of DNS servers in Salt Lake (since just about every major backbone connection in the state goes through Salt Lake) and let ISP's bounce DNS queries off them for filtered customers.
The reality right now in Utah is that there is virtually no local ISP that doesn't already have this sort of filtering as an option for their customers already. This will just presumably make it free for the customers.
Note that I am against stupid laws like this, but as far as technical possibility, it's already been done.
Possibly (you'd get a lot more interference and thus a slower connection speed), but I'm more interested than ever in taking my DSL connection and using it for VOIP in combination with this, since I don't have a regular landline right now.
If so, if we could figure out how many d6 of damage the fireball is doing, that'd give us a good clue as to the level of the caster and thus about how many hit points they have.
I know you are joking, but this problem pre-dates the IPO.
The basic issue is that not only can purposeful individuals kick you out of the serps with a simple 302 from a higher pagerank page, but people who use 302 redirects to track outgoing links from their site (and several content management software packages do this by default) can accidently do the same thing and there isn't anything the real webmaster can do about it.
It's been discussed in much greater detail in a thread at webmaster world for a while, as well.
National government revenue is up over the last 10/20/30 years. As I stated earlier, percent of GDP is irrelevent. If the national government is getting more wealth transferred to it than before, measured in the same terms (and it is), then revenue is up.
You don't say that your rent is down because it's gone up less than your production has. Why do you persist in the same error about the total national production?
I know why the GDP grows. Do you know what a catalaxy is? If not, then you don't know as much about economics as you think you do, because that's integral to why the GDP goes up.
Don't attempt to patronize me. I've probably forgotten more knowledge about economics than you even know exists. I can suggest a few dozen books for you to read to educate yourself, if you like.
Are you familiar with the Armey curve? The research behind that is more than sufficient to refute your premise about percent of GDP and economic growth.
As for the effect of tax cuts on revenue, that's been clearly documented. Perhaps you could be bothered to educate yourself about it?
Oh yeah, and stop crediting Clinton or Bush with outlay levels. We both know that Congress has the biggest say and responsibility for exactly how much actually gets spent, regardless of what any president proposes.
Are you aware that for the majority of the nation's history, government spending was more like 3% of GDP, and that most of the growth occured during that time period? Does that shock you?
Are you familiar with the huge body of evidence from all over the world that shows government spending levels much lower than ours lead to much higher national economic growth? It's been true for a very long time.
The average annual GDP growth rate for 1945 to 1969 was 3.06%. Hardly spectacular growth, when you consider that from 1789 to 2003 it averaged 4.14% and 1789 to 1944, it averaged 3.84%. That by itself refutes your claim of "Our nation's biggest economic boom in history was the period from the end of World War II to the end of the 1960s".
Where did you get your economic knowledge? Some U.S public school, perhaps?
The very first note on the IRS chart says: "NOTE: For tables with historical data, all amounts are in current dollars."
Also, the IRS source is not listed in Billions, either. So thanks for confirming my criticism of YOUR CBO numbers, but the IRS numbers I cited don't have your flaw.
Perhaps you could be bothered to actually read the source before attempting to contradict me on what it says?
Above, I gave an entire IRS page full of better numbers. You were the one complaining about them.
Spending or revenue as a percent of GDP should be much lower than it is if it's not going to act as a massive drag on the economy, but with current spending habits, that's tough to accomplish.
The problem is that spending has been growing too fast for years, not that the government doesn't get enough revenue.
If you personally went from making 50K/year and spending 55K/year to eventually making 90K/year, but spending 100K/year, you would be stupid to complain about how you don't make as much as some of your friends do instead of looking to see if you need to fix your spending habits.
Your problem wouldn't have anything to do with your income, because that's been increasing quite a bit, your problem is that you spend too much. How well your friends, the economy as a whole, or anyone else is doing in terms of income (GDP) is irrelevent. Saying, "Well, now I still only overspend by about 10%, so i'm ok." does nothing to solve the problem. The problem is that you spend too much on things that you shouldn't be spending on, not that your income just hasn't kept pace with your spending habits!
I don't buy it when the Republicans or the Democrats say "it's percent of GDP that matters!", and I don't buy it when you say it either. Yeah, that matters in terms of how well people are to afford or not afford to pay their taxes, but it doesn't change the fact that the American people spend plenty on government and too much of their money is being wasted by their representatives.
Again, the problem isn't that government isn't taking enough wealth from the people, because they have demonstratably done as much or more with much less in the past. The problem is that they waste too much of what they spend. Just because the people have gotten more wealthy and more efficient (GDP has gone up), doesn't excuse Congress for wasting more money as long as the percentage to GDP doesn't go up, even if the absolute amount does.
If what you personally make in income has no bearing on what a reasonable and fair price for what you have to spend on say, buying new shoes, then why whould it make a difference to what price you pay for government?
Why is the total cost of government supposed to inflate based on GDP growth? Can you answer that? If you can't, then percent of GDP as a measurement is a totally irrelevent excuse for those wasting our money.
The CBO numbers you cite for Bush (at least the ones I could find on the web page you reference) aren't actual numbers, instead they are a combination of CBO projections (which are invariably ALWAYS wrong) and it's idea of a "standardized" budget, which leaves out capital gains tax revenue, interest inflation, asset sales, etc..., etc...
You might note that the CBO figures are always revised for years afterward, while the figures I gave are actual recorded revenue from the IRS. I don't put any trust in "standardized" projections on the revenue the government will record as having been gotten in 2003/2004, because the CBO numbers will be further revised and shown to have been wrong, as they have been already at least once or twice.
But even if you use those numbers, my point stands, which was that revenue has increased tremendously over the last 10 and 20 years, while spending has increased even more. The budget problem isn't one of "not enough revenue", but one of "too much spending". So blaming minor tax cuts as the reason there isn't enough desired cash for the NSF, for example, simply isn't the problem.
2. An anti-war site had the cite and nice pie chart. I checked through the NYT archives, but they apparently did a huge number of budget articles on Feb 8th, 2005 and I couldn't find which one the chart came from. Note the percentages are from Bush's proposed 2006 budget.
4. Maybe I misunderstood your question. If you remove the SS program and the SS payroll tax revenues at the same time, then the SS surplus of around 68 Billion is the extra revenue you'll have to come up with in that event, right? That could be gotten by holding spending even for one year instead of increasing it by over 68 billion. Or am I missing what you are asking?
The IRS source is http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03db31ps.xls. It took me two clearly labeled clicks from the IRS home page to find that, so it's not exactly hidden.
They show gross collections of 1,120,799,558,292 in 1992 (current dollars), so obviously the IRS report and whatever the source of your numbers is don't match at all. There could be a difference in what revenues are being counted, since the IRS doesn't collect _all_ U.S. revenue.
Care to provide a link to the CBO or OMBWatch sites that have those numbers?
Just looked it up, and spending percent of GDP has been more of an up-down roller-coaster than anything else. There is a 125 year CBO projection graph that illustrates it going up from the 50's low of 15% to the mid 80's peak of 23%, then declining gradually to the present 18%, projecting a future rise. (CBO predictions being much less reliable than historical numbers.)
The range between 15% and 23% isn't a huge one, though, and probably has more to do with how well the economy was growing (since that has fluctuated a lot) than the spending increase level (since that has been a more steady upward trend, although the Republican Congress of the early 90's held increases down to as low as 28 billion some years).
1. The numbers are all in current dollars, so the comparison takes into account inflation.
2. I haven't looked at percentage of GDP for a while, so don't hold me to this, but I'm pretty sure that it's increased some over the same time periods, but not by nearly as much. However, I did recently look at per capita taxes (it was on the same IRS chart as the dollars cited above) and the current dollar amount per capita has also increased at almost the same rate as the overall revenues. So the "average" individual is paying a lot more in current dollar taxes than they used to 10 or 20 years ago.
3. According to the NY Times a month ago, the current budget breakdown is: Military 19% Interest 8% Medicaid 8% Medicare 13% Social Security 21% Other nondiscretionary 13% Nonmilitary discretionary 18%
4. In 2003 the social security surplus was 68 Billion. That's a lot of money, but the annual increase in total federal spending for each of the past 5 years is higher than that. (The range is 75-147 billion). In other words, if you held spending even, instead of increasing it, for one year, you'd be able to stop taking any money from the social security surplus for the general budget.
I hate to be the one to point this out to you (ok, I don't, not really), but "while reducing tax revenues" is an incorrect statement.
I know that's the myth the Dems try to feed the public, but the reality (which is readily available from the IRS website) is that U.S. tax revenues are up over the last few years.
For example, the highest annual gross revenue the IRS collected from 1992-1999 is lower than any of the years 2000-2003. Generally much lower. (Actual 2004 numbers not being out yet, but projections suggest even faster growing revenues over the next few years) This would tend to lead me to believe that the government is currently getting plenty of revenue.
Do you realize that federal tax revenues are up almost double over 10 years ago? (1.3 trillion to 2 trillion+) Similarly, revenues doubled from the end of the Carter years to the end of the Reagan/Bush Sr. years. (500 billion to up over a trillion.)
No, the budget problem has absolutely nothing to do with not enough tax revenue. The problem is way too much spending, and that's a problem that can be laid on both sides of the aisle in Congress. It is congress that spends the money, after all.
The problem with your NSF comment is that true budgeting is about priorities, where you must take money from one lower priority to fund a higher one. Resources don't appear magically to be added to someone's pet project, the government has to forcibly take them from someone else (either now or later) to spend it themselves.
So it's at least a little bit of budget sanity to say, "Hey, if we're going to fund a Moon push, some of that money needs to come from the NSF, because we think the moon thing is a higher priority!" instead of just racking up more debt for present and future generations to pay interest on.
If you really think that the NSF should get another 100 million, I presume that would be by cutting NASA 100 million? Or where else would you get the money?
Sometimes one-hand doesn't think of what the other hand is doing in a big company.
The fact that they were feeding the info to themselves, but not to any other search engines makes me think it's a bit of an innocent mistake.
Is there any evidence that this actually had an affect on any rankings that matter? Wouldn't it be a bit easier for them to manipulate rankings than to purposefully keyword-stuff themselves? It's not like keyword stuffing as done in the example actually makes much of a difference in Google's ranking factors.
Apparently the original problem was caused by the Google Search Appliance identifying itself with the string googlebot, similar to the general search sit bot. The support section of the site was setup to return additional keyword information to the internal search appliance and "accidently" returned the same info to the regular googlebot.
Of course, it's nice to hear they're making themselves fix it before relisting themselves.
My point wasn't that I was in favor of the bill, because I'm not. My point was that most of the people posting didn't even bother to read what it actually said and simply commented on what they heard other people mistating.
Your statement about "Are the specifif URLs to be included in the bill? I doubt it." simply proves my point and places you among those who didn't even bother learning the facts of the matter before trying to complain and argue about it. If you had read even the rest of the comments already posted, you'd have answered your own question with more than "I doubt it."
Yeah, well, the slashdot effect probably doesn't mean a lot when no one actually follows the links and reads the articles.
I mean, almost the entire first page of this story's comments are completely wrong about what the (ill-conceived) proposed law actually would mandate.
The filtering would be optional. The "force" involved is that the ISP's would have to provide filtering a specific set of "adult" urls upon request from their customer, for that specific customer.
That in and of itself is too much government force for my taste, but it's not like 90% of Utah ISPs don't have this option available to their customers already, as it's a popular feature, so it's not going to make a huge difference in reality.
Did you consider disconnecting the offending computer from it's switch port, instead of from it's end?
Seems like that'd be a lot faster to find, assuming you have any kind of decent switch management at all. Typically, you wouldn't even have to physically pull the plug.
I'm surprised that with a pretty significant market share, the reviewer didn't bother to mention the offerings from DishNetwork.
Generally, the main differences between the Dishnetwork 921/942 HD DVRs and the HD Tivo models is that the Tivo has better auto-recording features for picking stuff you want to set a timer for, while the Dish DVRs are much, much faster to use in terms of the program guide, etc...
What it really comes down to for most people is the exact HD content they can get from cable/Direc/Dish, etc... All the features in the world are useless without something to watch in HD.
I'm to the point where I rarely even look at non-HD channels in the channel guide, let alone want to watch them. On a 100" screen, it's just too painful to watch SD most of the time.
Among the others mentioned here, also checkout sitescope. While commercial, it's pretty inexpensive compared to most commercial products, but can be used for polling, running scheduled scripts on a multitude of OSes, running locally on the monitored box if you don't want to poll, plus it interfaces with just about any email/paging/alerting system you'd want with customizable alerts, has dependancy checking so that you can get one alert that a router is down rather then 50 alerts that 50 servers behind that router are unreachable, has failover capability, pretty graphs and colors anc acknowledgement for monitoring alerts, etc..., etc..., etc...
If you don't want to pay someone else to write the script that checks on your (insert rare app server here)'s specialized health values, sitescope will let you pretty easily integrate your own. The main value of much more expensive stuff like HP's offerings is that they're going to have more pre-defined monitoring templates for rarer stuff.
On the other hand sitescope is a huge step up in pre-set automation and display over a lot of the free stuff like Big Sister, etc.. Anyway, check it out.
Well, since one firkin = 34.069 liters and a furlong = 201.168 meters, you'd take your furlongs/firkin number and multiply it by 0.169355961 as the conversion factor to get liters/meter.
So 30 miles/gallon = 2160 furlongs/firkin, or 365.808876 liters/meter or 12754311222.9082 meters^4 (reciprocal of moment of inertia of area)
Hope that helps. I'm American, so am of course used to making such conversions.
Slashdot Mirror
"That's not a job that can be handled by a single network appliance"
Umm... when my friend and I started an ISP in Utah in.... wait for it.... 1997.... this kind of filtering was already in demand by local customers and easily done by the use of a proxy server. See, you can take any type of source list (IPs, domains, whatever) that you want and give it to the proxy server and filter access to it.
Even easier (see, we've advanced since 1997) is to put your list into a DNS server set and then you can give your clients who want (if it's a domain list, which it should really be) filtering on their account that domain server set as their account's DNS.
I would suspect that in this particular case, the easiest thing is going to be for the state AG to setup a set of DNS servers in Salt Lake (since just about every major backbone connection in the state goes through Salt Lake) and let ISP's bounce DNS queries off them for filtered customers.
The reality right now in Utah is that there is virtually no local ISP that doesn't already have this sort of filtering as an option for their customers already. This will just presumably make it free for the customers.
Note that I am against stupid laws like this, but as far as technical possibility, it's already been done.
Possibly (you'd get a lot more interference and thus a slower connection speed), but I'm more interested than ever in taking my DSL connection and using it for VOIP in combination with this, since I don't have a regular landline right now.
If so, if we could figure out how many d6 of damage the fireball is doing, that'd give us a good clue as to the level of the caster and thus about how many hit points they have.
Useful information, you know.
I know you are joking, but this problem pre-dates the IPO.
The basic issue is that not only can purposeful individuals kick you out of the serps with a simple 302 from a higher pagerank page, but people who use 302 redirects to track outgoing links from their site (and several content management software packages do this by default) can accidently do the same thing and there isn't anything the real webmaster can do about it.
It's been discussed in much greater detail in a thread at webmaster world for a while, as well.
National government revenue is up over the last 10/20/30 years. As I stated earlier, percent of GDP is irrelevent. If the national government is getting more wealth transferred to it than before, measured in the same terms (and it is), then revenue is up.
You don't say that your rent is down because it's gone up less than your production has. Why do you persist in the same error about the total national production?
I know why the GDP grows. Do you know what a catalaxy is? If not, then you don't know as much about economics as you think you do, because that's integral to why the GDP goes up.
Don't attempt to patronize me. I've probably forgotten more knowledge about economics than you even know exists. I can suggest a few dozen books for you to read to educate yourself, if you like.
Are you familiar with the Armey curve? The research behind that is more than sufficient to refute your premise about percent of GDP and economic growth.
As for the effect of tax cuts on revenue, that's been clearly documented. Perhaps you could be bothered to educate yourself about it?
Oh yeah, and stop crediting Clinton or Bush with outlay levels. We both know that Congress has the biggest say and responsibility for exactly how much actually gets spent, regardless of what any president proposes.
Are you aware that for the majority of the nation's history, government spending was more like 3% of GDP, and that most of the growth occured during that time period? Does that shock you?
Are you familiar with the huge body of evidence from all over the world that shows government spending levels much lower than ours lead to much higher national economic growth? It's been true for a very long time.
The average annual GDP growth rate for 1945 to 1969 was 3.06%. Hardly spectacular growth, when you consider that from 1789 to 2003 it averaged 4.14% and 1789 to 1944, it averaged 3.84%. That by itself refutes your claim of "Our nation's biggest economic boom in history was the period from the end of World War II to the end of the 1960s".
Where did you get your economic knowledge? Some U.S public school, perhaps?
The very first note on the IRS chart says: "NOTE: For tables with historical data, all amounts are in current dollars."
Also, the IRS source is not listed in Billions, either. So thanks for confirming my criticism of YOUR CBO numbers, but the IRS numbers I cited don't have your flaw.
Perhaps you could be bothered to actually read the source before attempting to contradict me on what it says?
Above, I gave an entire IRS page full of better numbers. You were the one complaining about them.
Spending or revenue as a percent of GDP should be much lower than it is if it's not going to act as a massive drag on the economy, but with current spending habits, that's tough to accomplish.
The problem is that spending has been growing too fast for years, not that the government doesn't get enough revenue.
If you personally went from making 50K/year and spending 55K/year to eventually making 90K/year, but spending 100K/year, you would be stupid to complain about how you don't make as much as some of your friends do instead of looking to see if you need to fix your spending habits.
Your problem wouldn't have anything to do with your income, because that's been increasing quite a bit, your problem is that you spend too much. How well your friends, the economy as a whole, or anyone else is doing in terms of income (GDP) is irrelevent. Saying, "Well, now I still only overspend by about 10%, so i'm ok." does nothing to solve the problem. The problem is that you spend too much on things that you shouldn't be spending on, not that your income just hasn't kept pace with your spending habits!
I don't buy it when the Republicans or the Democrats say "it's percent of GDP that matters!", and I don't buy it when you say it either. Yeah, that matters in terms of how well people are to afford or not afford to pay their taxes, but it doesn't change the fact that the American people spend plenty on government and too much of their money is being wasted by their representatives.
Again, the problem isn't that government isn't taking enough wealth from the people, because they have demonstratably done as much or more with much less in the past. The problem is that they waste too much of what they spend. Just because the people have gotten more wealthy and more efficient (GDP has gone up), doesn't excuse Congress for wasting more money as long as the percentage to GDP doesn't go up, even if the absolute amount does.
If what you personally make in income has no bearing on what a reasonable and fair price for what you have to spend on say, buying new shoes, then why whould it make a difference to what price you pay for government?
Why is the total cost of government supposed to inflate based on GDP growth? Can you answer that? If you can't, then percent of GDP as a measurement is a totally irrelevent excuse for those wasting our money.
Am I the only one who pictured two space shuttles taking off in tandem?
Ah yes, and as noted earlier, you don't have to adjust the IRS numbers for inflation, as the source I cited was given in current dollars.
The CBO numbers you cite for Bush (at least the ones I could find on the web page you reference) aren't actual numbers, instead they are a combination of CBO projections (which are invariably ALWAYS wrong) and it's idea of a "standardized" budget, which leaves out capital gains tax revenue, interest inflation, asset sales, etc..., etc...
You might note that the CBO figures are always revised for years afterward, while the figures I gave are actual recorded revenue from the IRS. I don't put any trust in "standardized" projections on the revenue the government will record as having been gotten in 2003/2004, because the CBO numbers will be further revised and shown to have been wrong, as they have been already at least once or twice.
But even if you use those numbers, my point stands, which was that revenue has increased tremendously over the last 10 and 20 years, while spending has increased even more. The budget problem isn't one of "not enough revenue", but one of "too much spending". So blaming minor tax cuts as the reason there isn't enough desired cash for the NSF, for example, simply isn't the problem.
2. An anti-war site had the cite and nice pie chart. I checked through the NYT archives, but they apparently did a huge number of budget articles on Feb 8th, 2005 and I couldn't find which one the chart came from. Note the percentages are from Bush's proposed 2006 budget.
4. Maybe I misunderstood your question. If you remove the SS program and the SS payroll tax revenues at the same time, then the SS surplus of around 68 Billion is the extra revenue you'll have to come up with in that event, right? That could be gotten by holding spending even for one year instead of increasing it by over 68 billion. Or am I missing what you are asking?
The IRS source is http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03db31ps.xls. It took me two clearly labeled clicks from the IRS home page to find that, so it's not exactly hidden.
They show gross collections of 1,120,799,558,292 in 1992 (current dollars), so obviously the IRS report and whatever the source of your numbers is don't match at all. There could be a difference in what revenues are being counted, since the IRS doesn't collect _all_ U.S. revenue.
Care to provide a link to the CBO or OMBWatch sites that have those numbers?
Just looked it up, and spending percent of GDP has been more of an up-down roller-coaster than anything else. There is a 125 year CBO projection graph that illustrates it going up from the 50's low of 15% to the mid 80's peak of 23%, then declining gradually to the present 18%, projecting a future rise. (CBO predictions being much less reliable than historical numbers.)
The range between 15% and 23% isn't a huge one, though, and probably has more to do with how well the economy was growing (since that has fluctuated a lot) than the spending increase level (since that has been a more steady upward trend, although the Republican Congress of the early 90's held increases down to as low as 28 billion some years).
1. The numbers are all in current dollars, so the comparison takes into account inflation.
2. I haven't looked at percentage of GDP for a while, so don't hold me to this, but I'm pretty sure that it's increased some over the same time periods, but not by nearly as much. However, I did recently look at per capita taxes (it was on the same IRS chart as the dollars cited above) and the current dollar amount per capita has also increased at almost the same rate as the overall revenues. So the "average" individual is paying a lot more in current dollar taxes than they used to 10 or 20 years ago.
3. According to the NY Times a month ago, the current budget breakdown is:
Military 19%
Interest 8%
Medicaid 8%
Medicare 13%
Social Security 21%
Other nondiscretionary 13%
Nonmilitary discretionary 18%
4. In 2003 the social security surplus was 68 Billion. That's a lot of money, but the annual increase in total federal spending for each of the past 5 years is higher than that. (The range is 75-147 billion). In other words, if you held spending even, instead of increasing it, for one year, you'd be able to stop taking any money from the social security surplus for the general budget.
I hate to be the one to point this out to you (ok, I don't, not really), but "while reducing tax revenues" is an incorrect statement.
I know that's the myth the Dems try to feed the public, but the reality (which is readily available from the IRS website) is that U.S. tax revenues are up over the last few years.
For example, the highest annual gross revenue the IRS collected from 1992-1999 is lower than any of the years 2000-2003. Generally much lower. (Actual 2004 numbers not being out yet, but projections suggest even faster growing revenues over the next few years) This would tend to lead me to believe that the government is currently getting plenty of revenue.
Do you realize that federal tax revenues are up almost double over 10 years ago? (1.3 trillion to 2 trillion+) Similarly, revenues doubled from the end of the Carter years to the end of the Reagan/Bush Sr. years. (500 billion to up over a trillion.)
No, the budget problem has absolutely nothing to do with not enough tax revenue. The problem is way too much spending, and that's a problem that can be laid on both sides of the aisle in Congress. It is congress that spends the money, after all.
The problem with your NSF comment is that true budgeting is about priorities, where you must take money from one lower priority to fund a higher one. Resources don't appear magically to be added to someone's pet project, the government has to forcibly take them from someone else (either now or later) to spend it themselves.
So it's at least a little bit of budget sanity to say, "Hey, if we're going to fund a Moon push, some of that money needs to come from the NSF, because we think the moon thing is a higher priority!" instead of just racking up more debt for present and future generations to pay interest on.
If you really think that the NSF should get another 100 million, I presume that would be by cutting NASA 100 million? Or where else would you get the money?
Sometimes one-hand doesn't think of what the other hand is doing in a big company.
The fact that they were feeding the info to themselves, but not to any other search engines makes me think it's a bit of an innocent mistake.
Is there any evidence that this actually had an affect on any rankings that matter? Wouldn't it be a bit easier for them to manipulate rankings than to purposefully keyword-stuff themselves? It's not like keyword stuffing as done in the example actually makes much of a difference in Google's ranking factors.
The source is a Google employee with corporate permission to occasionally speak outside the plex on issues.
See his comments at Webmaster World.
Apparently the original problem was caused by the Google Search Appliance identifying itself with the string googlebot, similar to the general search sit bot. The support section of the site was setup to return additional keyword information to the internal search appliance and "accidently" returned the same info to the regular googlebot.
Of course, it's nice to hear they're making themselves fix it before relisting themselves.
You have to make something that customers want, AND be able to supply it for a profit for what they are willing to pay for it.
That's another little detail.
My point wasn't that I was in favor of the bill, because I'm not. My point was that most of the people posting didn't even bother to read what it actually said and simply commented on what they heard other people mistating.
Your statement about "Are the specifif URLs to be included in the bill? I doubt it." simply proves my point and places you among those who didn't even bother learning the facts of the matter before trying to complain and argue about it. If you had read even the rest of the comments already posted, you'd have answered your own question with more than "I doubt it."
Yeah, well, the slashdot effect probably doesn't mean a lot when no one actually follows the links and reads the articles.
I mean, almost the entire first page of this story's comments are completely wrong about what the (ill-conceived) proposed law actually would mandate.
The filtering would be optional. The "force" involved is that the ISP's would have to provide filtering a specific set of "adult" urls upon request from their customer, for that specific customer.
That in and of itself is too much government force for my taste, but it's not like 90% of Utah ISPs don't have this option available to their customers already, as it's a popular feature, so it's not going to make a huge difference in reality.
Did you consider disconnecting the offending computer from it's switch port, instead of from it's end?
Seems like that'd be a lot faster to find, assuming you have any kind of decent switch management at all. Typically, you wouldn't even have to physically pull the plug.
I'm surprised that with a pretty significant market share, the reviewer didn't bother to mention the offerings from DishNetwork.
Generally, the main differences between the Dishnetwork 921/942 HD DVRs and the HD Tivo models is that the Tivo has better auto-recording features for picking stuff you want to set a timer for, while the Dish DVRs are much, much faster to use in terms of the program guide, etc...
What it really comes down to for most people is the exact HD content they can get from cable/Direc/Dish, etc... All the features in the world are useless without something to watch in HD.
I'm to the point where I rarely even look at non-HD channels in the channel guide, let alone want to watch them. On a 100" screen, it's just too painful to watch SD most of the time.
Among the others mentioned here, also checkout sitescope. While commercial, it's pretty inexpensive compared to most commercial products, but can be used for polling, running scheduled scripts on a multitude of OSes, running locally on the monitored box if you don't want to poll, plus it interfaces with just about any email/paging/alerting system you'd want with customizable alerts, has dependancy checking so that you can get one alert that a router is down rather then 50 alerts that 50 servers behind that router are unreachable, has failover capability, pretty graphs and colors anc acknowledgement for monitoring alerts, etc..., etc..., etc...
If you don't want to pay someone else to write the script that checks on your (insert rare app server here)'s specialized health values, sitescope will let you pretty easily integrate your own. The main value of much more expensive stuff like HP's offerings is that they're going to have more pre-defined monitoring templates for rarer stuff.
On the other hand sitescope is a huge step up in pre-set automation and display over a lot of the free stuff like Big Sister, etc.. Anyway, check it out.
Well, since one firkin = 34.069 liters and a furlong = 201.168 meters, you'd take your furlongs/firkin number and multiply it by 0.169355961 as the conversion factor to get liters/meter.
So 30 miles/gallon = 2160 furlongs/firkin, or 365.808876 liters/meter or 12754311222.9082 meters^4 (reciprocal of moment of inertia of
area)
Hope that helps. I'm American, so am of course used to making such conversions.