No, what needs to happen is a little education of the public and then vote with your feet. I still will not enter a store because they use ID scanners. I have absolutely no problem driving out of my way to an Apple Valley liquor store to buy beer because they don't scan. I still tell them, every time, that I'm there because they protect my privacy.
Lakeville Liquors just built a new facility less than a half mile from my house. I walk by it daily and am proud that it joins the ranks of Starbucks as an establishment that I will never step foot in.
In addition, I have used a high powered earth magnet on my ID's magnetic stripe rendering it useless in any scanner including the cops (who asked me to get a new ID because it was "worn out"), the smoke shop (for cigars), or anywhere else that feels the need to scan ID.
If enough people realized what those machines did (I make sure to tell everyone around me when I see one being used before walking out) then businesses would stop using them because less people would enter the store. Sadly I'm dreaming about that because no one cares.
Being forced to vote by methods that are easy to tamper with and have no way to prove otherwise? Oh, you meant something completely different.
Is it possible that people can refuse to use the Diebold machines when they get to the poll? Can't we just say, "give me the paper ballot?" Why do we have to do it one way or the other. If someone is not knowledgeable in the ways of corruption, cannot use paper for whatever reason, or want to use the modern technology they should be permitted to do so. OTOH, if someone (like me) knows that Diebold's results are easily corrupted w/o any trace, I want to use the tried and true method.
My public facing wireless AP has a SSID that reads, "I_SNIFF_AND_LOG". I generally find that no one is using my network and instead probably chose to use one of the 8 open "linksysfoo" APs around me.
Unfortunately, employers are often don't know what they want their employees to know. Take a look through some job descriptions and see how many show up with impossible requirements. (5 years experience in a language only out for say 3.)
Well, some think they know (by making those obscene job descriptions) but you may want to find one where you set the requirements for the job. After 3.5 years of job hunting following my move to Minnesota, I found a place of employment that let me develop my own job description in the first year. I wasn't limited by anyone except myself and I found that the job I created is a much better fit for me than any other could have been.
While this might not work for everyone, it has opened new doors by allowing me to explore any direction I can think of and then add it to the "list of stuff I do," which now totals over 15 pages.
I'm always looking for better employment (more money!) but I have yet to find another location that gives me the freedom to learn, expand and help them do what they need to have done quite like my current job.
All this shows is that it doesn't make one bit of a difference if it's DOCSIS 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 because Comcast is still going to throttle you via a config file and you will probably never see 150mbit connections on their network unless you're getting on-demand movies.
If we were currently seeing 38mbit/(9|27)mbit connections now, I might be inclined to say, "yeah, they're going to give us 150+" but because they're operating at about 6mbit/less than 1mbit for the majority of connections (yes, they go a higher for short bursts) this is nothing more than fluff for CES.
Can I definitively claim that there's a connection between a willingness to embrace blackhat SEO and a willingness to cut corners in other areas of business? No, of course not.
So in other words, he's drawing a conclusion based on one (or a handful, who knows) of cases and then this particular author made a story out of it and Slashdot picked it up?
You need to read some of Jimmy's comments on one of the blogs linked in the summary, especially the one I have copy/pasted below... The most important part is the second paragraph and while I am no Wikipedia fan and certainly agree with your comments that protections need to occur from what I assume you mean by "editors running wild," I think what he says below is very important for this new project!
It's a project to *build* a search engine, not a search engine. We've been telling everyone that constantly. I'm sorry Michael's disappointed, but having said that, we didn't build it for him, but for people who think that openness, transparency, and participation are more important than slick releases.
When I launched Wikipedia, I wrote at the top of the first page "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". On that day, anyone reviewing it would have laughed. What's this? There's nothing here! This is not an encyclopedia, it is an empty website with some funny editing syntax!
So the comparison to Google on day one is just mistaken. Google didn't launch a project to build a human-powered search engine, they launched an algorithmic search engine with a clever new idea. So they didn't have to wait for the humans to come in and start building it.
We aren't even running with a real index yet, just a placeholder index. Yeah, the search sucks today. But that's not the point. The point is that we are building something different.
It would have been impressive if it were competing with devices that came out in 2003 and 2004 that did exactly the same thing except without the blessings of the cable companies.
Instead of devices that further lock you into one provider, I think that cable companies should be forced to come up with ways to allow their subscribers to get the content they have recorded onto their devices easily -- no reformatting, no slow downloading (TiVo via wifi), etc.
They want to have lock-in permitted by the government? Well, we should get something in return other than higher rates and ever shittier service.
I guess I'm buying the wrong CDs. I have never seen CD prices above about $12.99 and I've lived in PA, OH, and MN over the last 15 years that I've remembered buying CDs so it's not like it was a regional thing.
I don't typically buy music online or in physical stores as what I listen to (for the most part) is available for free online (Grateful Dead, Widespread Panic, String Cheese Incident, etc, etc, etc, etc) but I have been using Amazon's MP3 store for other shit that's Indie like Blonde Redhead's album 23 because they have it, it's cheap, it's DRM free and I'm happy to support those that aren't RIAA hooked fucks.
My wife just informed me that the most she has spent on a CD was $15.99 on a Taylor Hicks CD that was only available from some small local store in Arkansas. So I really want to know where these $19 CDs are and why I can't find them -- do they really exist or are Slashbotters just making that number up to cement their idea that RIAA sponsored music is horrid (like we didn't know already)?
Any actual proof of a majority of CDs listed for $19?
Actually, the marketers that are scanning those networks own you and your data. Unless you show absolutely nothing, to no one, they are collecting something about you and those you are connected to.
If you aren't showing any data to anyone then you belong to a social networking site for no reason.
Because they own copyrights on already recorded music that people like and will continue to buy for the foreseeable future, they will continue to have viable income for at least another 125 years. So while they might start faltering in 20 they won't be dead until the copyrights run out. Problem is that they will never run out because we'll never get those douchebags in Washington to fix the mess they were paid to create.
Now where have I heard that before... Oh, that's right. SCO. And look where they're at...
Yeah, but they didn't have much to market and a very small group that they could actually market their products (invented or real) to. SCO had to invent the "Pay us for Linux or we'll sue later" shit in order to have something that some companies would actually be willing to pay them for.
Those involved with the RIAA still have a product that is mass marketable and that plenty of people will continue to purchase. Just because the Slashbotters (me included on this one) refuse to support RIAA music doesn't mean that anyone else really gives a shit. Yes, artists are starting to come around and going around the RIAA by distributing their music online, and it's working, but it's still not to the point where it's a 100% viable method to get your music out.
It will be at least 5 years and more like 15 to 20 before we really see the fuckers die off -- as unfortunate as that is.
I have been speaking out against this fleecing of America for years. I'm mostly upset with the unnecessary spectrum selloff and the fact that Congress is only allocating 1.5 billion for this program.
They forced a completely unnecessary program and will profit from the money that is really owned by the people. If we truly own the spectrum then the people should not have to pay a cent as I'm sure the revenue generated will be far more than 1.5 billion.
The idea is to challenge the established players by offering a search service that is more transparent to end users, meaning they can see how search results are arrived at. Wales has described Yahoo and Google as opaque services that don't explain how results are arrived at.
Personally, I don't care how search engines rank the websites they return as long as what is returned is proper, relevant and useful.
Disclaimer: I own a Mac and I don't particularly care for it and I go to the Mall of America much more than I'm willing to admit to my drinkin' buddies.
While the Apple Store at the MoA is busy it's certainly not as busy as you claim. Yes, there are people inside and yes there are cool things to play with (I myself have posted before about going there to drool over those oversized LCD panels running Google Maps that I would love to use for work) but recently they have become more and more like Best Buy or Circuit City. I mentioned in a prior post that I couldn't locate because I'm mobile, that my wife suggested to one of their sales people that she was uncomfortable by their new approach. They used to let you do what you wanted without disturbing you so much, now, they pounce and start harping right as you walk in the door.
While I've checked my email via SSH and played with the huge cinema displays, I haven't spent more than 20 minutes in the store at that mall and I didn't notice anyone else doing so either.
The MoA has plenty of busy traffic everywhere and the Apple Store isn't getting anymore of it than any of the other largish stores. Personally, I believe the anchors (if you can call them that there) are 10x as busy but that's IMHO.
Why? Because 75% of the time, when I'm interviewed for an article, I'm misquoted. I expected people to be misquoted and thus I take articles in the news media with a grain of salt. I also know that many times people aren't misquoted and don't like the result of the article as a whole and then bitch that they were misquoted in order to cover their own asses.
What I want to see are related content where the general public can respond to the articles and I can see, from both sides of the issue, responses that are far more relevant than the two pages and misquoted whinings that appear linked from Google News.
I realize that this is Slashdot and there are slow news days, especially around the holidays, but for the New York Times to be that far behind the times is a little ridiculous. I know, I know they are talking about how few people have been using it since it was introduced this spring but come on.
Personally, while I read Google News several times a day, I find the feature completely worthless. I honestly don't give a flying rats ass what the people quoted in the article have to say. What I would like to see is related blog articles, with user comments, linked straight from Google News itself. Hell, Google knows what types of blogs I prefer to read (I use Google Reader), make certain that the blogs you link to are ones that I'm more likely to read and then post on.
This feature, while obviously still "beta", could be improved so much more. I know you crazy engineers are out there reading this, just do what I said and it'll be a helluva lot more popular:)
While copying media goes way back (remember the DAT tax or the fear that cassettes or VCRs would end the world?) before college students of today, the media conglomerates campaign against this type of crap is only really starting. With the RIAA making up its own commercials, getting laws passed by paying off lawmakers and adding so many fucking anti-infringement notices to their media that I burn DVDs just to rid myself of them.
In 30 years we might not see what we would expect. The RIAA and MPAA has deeper pockets than the nerd crowd and they have a lot more to lose.
No one here, or really anywhere else, could believe the RIAA would win that fucking case in Duluth and yet they did. For whatever reason there are still people out there that can be easily swayed by the bullshit that is strewn from the mouths of those douchebags.
I fear the worst. Support those artists that support freedom of music and media before your money is used against people just like you.
...why educational institutions ought to be in the business of quasi-professional sports in the first place. The tail has been wagging the dog for a long time now, and it's getting worse every year.
Why? Because it makes money -- lots of money to fund all those things that geeks like such as research and scholarships.
Other than selection, which is arguably a non-issue these days, why would I bother downloading something as large as lossless audio when there's no real benefit to doing so? I could just as easily go to the store and pickup the original CD for only a small bit more than or, more than likely, the same price as the download. I get the physical media and it doesn't cost much more, this is a no brainer for me.
The ease of access argument is null, in my mind, because it has DRM and any ease is negated right there. When I spend the time to download FLAC from etree, dimeadozen, or where ever else, it's not a waste because the music is free, pretty much unavailable in any other format anywhere, and there's a huge selection of it.
I'm sure it will have limited success with those that are *that* excited about the delivery medium and are that obsessed with lossless format. For the rest of us that pretend to be audiophiles, we'll probably stick to our free FLAC files and/or purchased physical CDs.
if you were to shout "france capital" at someone, it would be rude and confusing. but for a computer, it's actually superior
I know what you're trying to get at but that example wasn't exactly a good one. The search engine could simply strip all the words that are pointless (is, the, and of). I'm sure that if it accepted natural search words like "what" that would automatically be eliminated too.
My biggest question is how many searches come from people in a natural way? Since Sunday only two have landed at my site out of 12,206 searches across the various engines:
1. What does Ba-Tampte mean (yahoo)
2. What type of mushrooms to put on pizza (google)
If I'm at such a low percentage for natural language searching, I can only imagine that it's even less for the whole lot. Why bother to fix something that isn't broken?
But isn't this yesterday's news? Or did I read it on yahoo over breakfast. I long for the days when slashdot was for news I didn't see on Yahoo first. But this is still cool technology. And means I should keep putting off buying a new iPod.
I long for the days when Yahoo posted something and there was a community of people that responded to the content of the blurb (not the article of course!) and you got responses in the range of trolls all the way through insightful discussion, commentary and links to other pertinent (or not so) information.
I recently got a $16 a month AT&T line just so I could find my phone when I lose it tho.
When I first moved to Burnsville, MN in November of 2002 I was able to get a QWest landline that charged per minute (it included 180 minutes per month of outgoing calls). After arguing w/the rep for several minutes (more than 15) that this was indeed what I wanted as I used my mobile for all my calls, I had a pretty decent plan for under $20/mo (I believe it was $18.95/mo). I had ATTBI/Comcast Internet there (QWest did not offer DSL service to my building -- I assume because AT&T bought them out) and paid $42.95/mo because I owned my own modem.
When I moved to Apple Valley, MN in 2004 I found that Frontier not only did not offer this type of rate plan but that their landline cost over $30 and that I was required to have one for DSL because Charter cable blocks ports like 22, 25, and 80. I now pay $89/mo for DSL and phone in addition to my mobile costs. With unlimited data Internet on my T-mobile Sidekick with unlimited SMS I pay less than $50/mo. That doesn't include my wife's $30/mo T-mobile plan.
So while I'm very close I haven't gone over. If I still lived under QWest I would have years ago...
Slashdot Mirror
No, what needs to happen is a little education of the public and then vote with your feet. I still will not enter a store because they use ID scanners. I have absolutely no problem driving out of my way to an Apple Valley liquor store to buy beer because they don't scan. I still tell them, every time, that I'm there because they protect my privacy.
Lakeville Liquors just built a new facility less than a half mile from my house. I walk by it daily and am proud that it joins the ranks of Starbucks as an establishment that I will never step foot in.
In addition, I have used a high powered earth magnet on my ID's magnetic stripe rendering it useless in any scanner including the cops (who asked me to get a new ID because it was "worn out"), the smoke shop (for cigars), or anywhere else that feels the need to scan ID.
If enough people realized what those machines did (I make sure to tell everyone around me when I see one being used before walking out) then businesses would stop using them because less people would enter the store. Sadly I'm dreaming about that because no one cares.
These things happen in primaries.
Being forced to vote by methods that are easy to tamper with and have no way to prove otherwise? Oh, you meant something completely different.
Is it possible that people can refuse to use the Diebold machines when they get to the poll? Can't we just say, "give me the paper ballot?" Why do we have to do it one way or the other. If someone is not knowledgeable in the ways of corruption, cannot use paper for whatever reason, or want to use the modern technology they should be permitted to do so. OTOH, if someone (like me) knows that Diebold's results are easily corrupted w/o any trace, I want to use the tried and true method.
Why can't we?
My public facing wireless AP has a SSID that reads, "I_SNIFF_AND_LOG". I generally find that no one is using my network and instead probably chose to use one of the 8 open "linksysfoo" APs around me.
Unfortunately, employers are often don't know what they want their employees to know. Take a look through some job descriptions and see how many show up with impossible requirements. (5 years experience in a language only out for say 3.)
Well, some think they know (by making those obscene job descriptions) but you may want to find one where you set the requirements for the job. After 3.5 years of job hunting following my move to Minnesota, I found a place of employment that let me develop my own job description in the first year. I wasn't limited by anyone except myself and I found that the job I created is a much better fit for me than any other could have been.
While this might not work for everyone, it has opened new doors by allowing me to explore any direction I can think of and then add it to the "list of stuff I do," which now totals over 15 pages.
I'm always looking for better employment (more money!) but I have yet to find another location that gives me the freedom to learn, expand and help them do what they need to have done quite like my current job.
YMMV.
All this shows is that it doesn't make one bit of a difference if it's DOCSIS 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 because Comcast is still going to throttle you via a config file and you will probably never see 150mbit connections on their network unless you're getting on-demand movies.
If we were currently seeing 38mbit/(9|27)mbit connections now, I might be inclined to say, "yeah, they're going to give us 150+" but because they're operating at about 6mbit/less than 1mbit for the majority of connections (yes, they go a higher for short bursts) this is nothing more than fluff for CES.
From the article's quotation of Cutts:
Can I definitively claim that there's a connection between a willingness to embrace blackhat SEO and a willingness to cut corners in other areas of business? No, of course not.
So in other words, he's drawing a conclusion based on one (or a handful, who knows) of cases and then this particular author made a story out of it and Slashdot picked it up?
Yeah, non-issue; move along.
You need to read some of Jimmy's comments on one of the blogs linked in the summary, especially the one I have copy/pasted below... The most important part is the second paragraph and while I am no Wikipedia fan and certainly agree with your comments that protections need to occur from what I assume you mean by "editors running wild," I think what he says below is very important for this new project!
From here:
January 6th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Release early, release often.
It's a project to *build* a search engine, not a search engine. We've been telling everyone that constantly. I'm sorry Michael's disappointed, but having said that, we didn't build it for him, but for people who think that openness, transparency, and participation are more important than slick releases.
When I launched Wikipedia, I wrote at the top of the first page "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". On that day, anyone reviewing it would have laughed. What's this? There's nothing here! This is not an encyclopedia, it is an empty website with some funny editing syntax!
So the comparison to Google on day one is just mistaken. Google didn't launch a project to build a human-powered search engine, they launched an algorithmic search engine with a clever new idea. So they didn't have to wait for the humans to come in and start building it.
We aren't even running with a real index yet, just a placeholder index. Yeah, the search sucks today. But that's not the point. The point is that we are building something different.
It would have been impressive if it were competing with devices that came out in 2003 and 2004 that did exactly the same thing except without the blessings of the cable companies.
Instead of devices that further lock you into one provider, I think that cable companies should be forced to come up with ways to allow their subscribers to get the content they have recorded onto their devices easily -- no reformatting, no slow downloading (TiVo via wifi), etc.
They want to have lock-in permitted by the government? Well, we should get something in return other than higher rates and ever shittier service.
I guess I'm buying the wrong CDs. I have never seen CD prices above about $12.99 and I've lived in PA, OH, and MN over the last 15 years that I've remembered buying CDs so it's not like it was a regional thing.
I don't typically buy music online or in physical stores as what I listen to (for the most part) is available for free online (Grateful Dead, Widespread Panic, String Cheese Incident, etc, etc, etc, etc) but I have been using Amazon's MP3 store for other shit that's Indie like Blonde Redhead's album 23 because they have it, it's cheap, it's DRM free and I'm happy to support those that aren't RIAA hooked fucks.
My wife just informed me that the most she has spent on a CD was $15.99 on a Taylor Hicks CD that was only available from some small local store in Arkansas. So I really want to know where these $19 CDs are and why I can't find them -- do they really exist or are Slashbotters just making that number up to cement their idea that RIAA sponsored music is horrid (like we didn't know already)?
Any actual proof of a majority of CDs listed for $19?
Actually, the marketers that are scanning those networks own you and your data. Unless you show absolutely nothing, to no one, they are collecting something about you and those you are connected to.
If you aren't showing any data to anyone then you belong to a social networking site for no reason.
Oh and I forgot to add:
Because they own copyrights on already recorded music that people like and will continue to buy for the foreseeable future, they will continue to have viable income for at least another 125 years. So while they might start faltering in 20 they won't be dead until the copyrights run out. Problem is that they will never run out because we'll never get those douchebags in Washington to fix the mess they were paid to create.
Now where have I heard that before... Oh, that's right. SCO. And look where they're at...
Yeah, but they didn't have much to market and a very small group that they could actually market their products (invented or real) to. SCO had to invent the "Pay us for Linux or we'll sue later" shit in order to have something that some companies would actually be willing to pay them for.
Those involved with the RIAA still have a product that is mass marketable and that plenty of people will continue to purchase. Just because the Slashbotters (me included on this one) refuse to support RIAA music doesn't mean that anyone else really gives a shit. Yes, artists are starting to come around and going around the RIAA by distributing their music online, and it's working, but it's still not to the point where it's a 100% viable method to get your music out.
It will be at least 5 years and more like 15 to 20 before we really see the fuckers die off -- as unfortunate as that is.
I have been speaking out against this fleecing of America for years. I'm mostly upset with the unnecessary spectrum selloff and the fact that Congress is only allocating 1.5 billion for this program.
They forced a completely unnecessary program and will profit from the money that is really owned by the people. If we truly own the spectrum then the people should not have to pay a cent as I'm sure the revenue generated will be far more than 1.5 billion.
The idea is to challenge the established players by offering a search service that is more transparent to end users, meaning they can see how search results are arrived at. Wales has described Yahoo and Google as opaque services that don't explain how results are arrived at.
Personally, I don't care how search engines rank the websites they return as long as what is returned is proper, relevant and useful.
Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
Ill be watching you
God is watching us. God is watching us.
God is watching us from a distance.
From a distance you look like my friend,
even though we are at war.
From a distance I just cannot comprehend
what all this fighting is for.
Disclaimer: I own a Mac and I don't particularly care for it and I go to the Mall of America much more than I'm willing to admit to my drinkin' buddies.
While the Apple Store at the MoA is busy it's certainly not as busy as you claim. Yes, there are people inside and yes there are cool things to play with (I myself have posted before about going there to drool over those oversized LCD panels running Google Maps that I would love to use for work) but recently they have become more and more like Best Buy or Circuit City. I mentioned in a prior post that I couldn't locate because I'm mobile, that my wife suggested to one of their sales people that she was uncomfortable by their new approach. They used to let you do what you wanted without disturbing you so much, now, they pounce and start harping right as you walk in the door.
While I've checked my email via SSH and played with the huge cinema displays, I haven't spent more than 20 minutes in the store at that mall and I didn't notice anyone else doing so either.
The MoA has plenty of busy traffic everywhere and the Apple Store isn't getting anymore of it than any of the other largish stores. Personally, I believe the anchors (if you can call them that there) are 10x as busy but that's IMHO.
Why? Because 75% of the time, when I'm interviewed for an article, I'm misquoted. I expected people to be misquoted and thus I take articles in the news media with a grain of salt. I also know that many times people aren't misquoted and don't like the result of the article as a whole and then bitch that they were misquoted in order to cover their own asses.
What I want to see are related content where the general public can respond to the articles and I can see, from both sides of the issue, responses that are far more relevant than the two pages and misquoted whinings that appear linked from Google News.
I realize that this is Slashdot and there are slow news days, especially around the holidays, but for the New York Times to be that far behind the times is a little ridiculous. I know, I know they are talking about how few people have been using it since it was introduced this spring but come on.
:)
Personally, while I read Google News several times a day, I find the feature completely worthless. I honestly don't give a flying rats ass what the people quoted in the article have to say. What I would like to see is related blog articles, with user comments, linked straight from Google News itself. Hell, Google knows what types of blogs I prefer to read (I use Google Reader), make certain that the blogs you link to are ones that I'm more likely to read and then post on.
This feature, while obviously still "beta", could be improved so much more. I know you crazy engineers are out there reading this, just do what I said and it'll be a helluva lot more popular
While copying media goes way back (remember the DAT tax or the fear that cassettes or VCRs would end the world?) before college students of today, the media conglomerates campaign against this type of crap is only really starting. With the RIAA making up its own commercials, getting laws passed by paying off lawmakers and adding so many fucking anti-infringement notices to their media that I burn DVDs just to rid myself of them.
In 30 years we might not see what we would expect. The RIAA and MPAA has deeper pockets than the nerd crowd and they have a lot more to lose.
No one here, or really anywhere else, could believe the RIAA would win that fucking case in Duluth and yet they did. For whatever reason there are still people out there that can be easily swayed by the bullshit that is strewn from the mouths of those douchebags.
I fear the worst. Support those artists that support freedom of music and media before your money is used against people just like you.
...why educational institutions ought to be in the business of quasi-professional sports in the first place. The tail has been wagging the dog for a long time now, and it's getting worse every year.
Why? Because it makes money -- lots of money to fund all those things that geeks like such as research and scholarships.
Like it or not, people are downloading and sharing against copyright all over. And there's no reason to support that.
Then *everyone* who destroys evidence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, not just those that are apparently above the law.
Other than selection, which is arguably a non-issue these days, why would I bother downloading something as large as lossless audio when there's no real benefit to doing so? I could just as easily go to the store and pickup the original CD for only a small bit more than or, more than likely, the same price as the download. I get the physical media and it doesn't cost much more, this is a no brainer for me.
The ease of access argument is null, in my mind, because it has DRM and any ease is negated right there. When I spend the time to download FLAC from etree, dimeadozen, or where ever else, it's not a waste because the music is free, pretty much unavailable in any other format anywhere, and there's a huge selection of it.
I'm sure it will have limited success with those that are *that* excited about the delivery medium and are that obsessed with lossless format. For the rest of us that pretend to be audiophiles, we'll probably stick to our free FLAC files and/or purchased physical CDs.
if you were to shout "france capital" at someone, it would be rude and confusing. but for a computer, it's actually superior
I know what you're trying to get at but that example wasn't exactly a good one. The search engine could simply strip all the words that are pointless (is, the, and of). I'm sure that if it accepted natural search words like "what" that would automatically be eliminated too.
My biggest question is how many searches come from people in a natural way? Since Sunday only two have landed at my site out of 12,206 searches across the various engines:
1. What does Ba-Tampte mean (yahoo)
2. What type of mushrooms to put on pizza (google)
If I'm at such a low percentage for natural language searching, I can only imagine that it's even less for the whole lot. Why bother to fix something that isn't broken?
But isn't this yesterday's news? Or did I read it on yahoo over breakfast. I long for the days when slashdot was for news I didn't see on Yahoo first. But this is still cool technology. And means I should keep putting off buying a new iPod.
I long for the days when Yahoo posted something and there was a community of people that responded to the content of the blurb (not the article of course!) and you got responses in the range of trolls all the way through insightful discussion, commentary and links to other pertinent (or not so) information.
Errr wait, nevermind.
I recently got a $16 a month AT&T line just so I could find my phone when I lose it tho.
When I first moved to Burnsville, MN in November of 2002 I was able to get a QWest landline that charged per minute (it included 180 minutes per month of outgoing calls). After arguing w/the rep for several minutes (more than 15) that this was indeed what I wanted as I used my mobile for all my calls, I had a pretty decent plan for under $20/mo (I believe it was $18.95/mo). I had ATTBI/Comcast Internet there (QWest did not offer DSL service to my building -- I assume because AT&T bought them out) and paid $42.95/mo because I owned my own modem.
When I moved to Apple Valley, MN in 2004 I found that Frontier not only did not offer this type of rate plan but that their landline cost over $30 and that I was required to have one for DSL because Charter cable blocks ports like 22, 25, and 80. I now pay $89/mo for DSL and phone in addition to my mobile costs. With unlimited data Internet on my T-mobile Sidekick with unlimited SMS I pay less than $50/mo. That doesn't include my wife's $30/mo T-mobile plan.
So while I'm very close I haven't gone over. If I still lived under QWest I would have years ago...