not just a single word like you make it sound like
His test involved one word. I pointed out the uselessness of said search. The other tests may be valid, but so is criticism of this one. Still, you're free to defend it.
An example for Google UK is the search for the word "shelving"... On the main Google search for the same phrase, the results return 1 site that sells shelving, 6 shopping portals, 2 Universities and 1 Amazon store. Yet previously these results showed 9 shelving suppliers.
What does this guy expect? He searches on a single word and expects that every result be a retailer? Why not add some extra terms, like "buy" or "seller" or "retail" after that, buddy?
Seriously, should I start crying foul when I search Google for "dog" and it returns information on breeds rather than specific pet-stores?
So some people are trying to cheat the system, and Google is taking steps to prevent this. Good for them, I say. I'm tired of getting pages that appear to be legitimate, only to find that they're just redirect fillers.
As for Google's practices in general, retailers are free to moan and groan about their rankings, but there is no obligation for Google to specifically cater to their needs. If Google decided to change its algorithms, such that all links were turned alphabetically rather than by PageRank, they would be well within their rights to do so. Of course, I imagine that such a move would result in many people seeking other search engines soon enough.
Could this type of language be used in the future to ease natural language processing pains?
You mean like the roaring success of esperanto?
Long-distance communication benefits aside, this is just another language that would have to be learned by two parties as a common basis. Any language, either English (which is rapidly dominating the globe) or Finnish (random choice) could be substituted given a significant number of interested individuals.
It is impressive, though. Certainly must make good party tricks.
...until there are a flood of posters who mistakenly assume that the headline refers to Apple trying to claim ownership of the shareware concept? Perhaps "Apple Claims Ownership of Netflix" would have been better.
the system consists of Kernel, several GUI's, several editors, several server-tools, developement-tools, games, apps, office-suites, several browsers, several mail-clients. etc.
Indeed, many of the "security holes" previously cited by Microsoft-backed "researchers" are in supplemental packages or applications, rather than in the OS itself. For each KaZaA-based worm, does that say that Windows has a security flaw in it? Not necessarily. The application is often to blame.
With that in mind, add up all of the flaws in Windows apps, and the number will probably be staggering.
My calculator can increment by 1 for a heck of a long time with total stability.
Not entirely true. While I agree that these voting machines should be little more than simple adding machines, consider the sources of user error:
Voters must accurately push the correct touch-screen entry.
On a calculator, this is equivalent to selecting the appropriate operation (ie. 'plus'). Accidentally tapping another button might not be immediately apparent.
Votes for multiple candidates must be tallied.
On a calculator, this is equivalent to multiple memory locations. What if you hit M2 instead of M3 when switching tallies? Now the wrong candidate has your vote.
Consider, also, a source of machine error:
Numeric representations are finite and/or approximations
In the article text, it was mentioned that memory cards filled up. This is like adding so many 1's that you get the all-too familiar "E" on your calculator. While most calculators can handle numbers that would easily cover the world's population several times over, it's worth noting.
Finally, two examples of accountability and verification:
Votes must be recountable
Most calculators store tallies quite well, but leave little means of tracing the input. If M2 contains the value "54", I can assume that 1 was added n times, but this is not always true. 54 could easily be 44 1's added to an erroneously entered 10, but I can't tell with only the final number.
The integrity of the processing software must be verified
Like any data-processing machine, someone's got to program it. If I programmed your calculator such that, after a memory location contained a value larger than 138,763, it omitted every other addition, would you notice right away? What if I "diverted" that tally to another memory location?
It's not only the stability of the machine, but the accuracy of the input on the first place. For the general public, however, it's mainly about the scheming to which you allude, and the last two points above.
On the other hand, as we all know, the DNC is hotly contested in court as possible free speech violations, among other things.
I could never understand why it's being pushed as a free speech violation so much. If I stood outside someone's house every night, shouting my own personal philosophies, I could easily be arrested for disturbing the peace. If that person sound-proofed their windows, I couldn't appeal to some higher authority about my freedom of speech being violated. Telemarketers, however, are free to call me every other day at dinnertime to try and flog their wares.
Yes, people have a right to speak, but that doesn't mean I have to listen to it. I should also have the right to "ignore" what's being said.
If users outside the US are OK with duplicating copyrighted material, they're most likely not going to comply with the GPL as we currently see it.
Yep, but there's not much you can do to curtail that. Piracy in the form of GPL violations occurs already. It's like students pinching source code for their projects -- some will do it simply because they can. And yes, the number of violations would likely increase if it was mandatory to use products under said license. You could try taking the matter up with courts if it comes down to a compliance showdown, though when things fall outside of your own country, they're not so clear-cut.
Realistically, it's far easier for most people (read: non-programmers) to simply burn a copy of a pre-made application (whether proprietary or Open Source) than it is to actively develop and/or modify a new application using an Open Source basis, so the number of people taking-and-hoarding GPL'd software won't be that dramatic on the whole. If they copy an Open Source program and make no modifications, it's fine and dandy anyway. If they do, the issue shifts (as you point out) from not making money off of a commercial product to denying others the right to use your changes.
I suspect that the major piracy issue that is a concern here deals with money, rather than "academic" (for lack of a better word) advancement.
I doubt people here would want Open Source to be used widely at the cost of destroying the model.
Well, proprietary commercial software generally has a strict model whereby people who violate its license can be prosecuted. The fact that a significant portion of the population has unauthorized copies of a major operating system doesn't invalidate the model. It may be hard to enforce, but its validity remains intact. The one area in which Open Source may have a problem is coming up with the funds to pursue violations.
Nation's solution to software piracy: "Eliminate Microsoft"
Surely this will only shift the piracy to open-source applications. Why, by 2005, I'll bet there will be hundreds -- nay, thousands! -- of copies of Redhat and Mandrake circulating around Vietnam for free! And thousands of applications too! The horror!
Indeed, the numbers are correct, but they represent two different things.
The researchers concluded that the amount of new information produced last year was about 23 exabytes... The amount of new but stored (non-transmitted) information in 2002 was determined to be about five exabytes.
The proceeds from a gasoline tax ought to be used to finance cuts in other taxes.
"Ought to" usually means "never will" in situations like this, no?
I'm all for clean alternatives, but I can't see the government funneling a whole lot of their cash cow into new fuel sources. Wouldn't tax breaks (for those who choose clean) be more appropriate than tax increases (for those who don't)?
Branding goes hand-in-hand with a large marketing strategy designed to get that brand into the mind of the consumer. How does Mozilla accomplish this, exactly?
At the moment, they don't, but this is precisely what needs to be done. Brand the image and increase the word-of-mouth.
...cost-ineffective to go through the intensive and expensive motions of effectively branding.
But it doesn't have to be. Anyone contributor with some free time can do simple things that would help -- common icons, logos, etc. The entire image doesn't need to be reworked, but small things can be.
But how many people out there, if you were to ask them what a little green chameleon makes them think of, would say Suse?
The same applied to all logos out there at one point. McDonald's? Nike? MS Windows? Obviously, only someone familiar with the company will identify the logo. But make that logo something memorable (or easier to remember, in any case), and more people will want to find out what it is.
I hear what you're saying, but I can't see how this would be a bad idea outright for the Moz team.
The main reason you'd want to brand is to leave an imprint in the mind of somebody who's a potential consumer... But really, at this point, why bother?
For the exact reason you state: the potential consumers. Branding would be useful in getting more people to give ol' Moz a try. One of the main things about the average surfer, I find, is that (s)he simply doesn't know about it.
Slashdot Mirror
not just a single word like you make it sound like
His test involved one word. I pointed out the uselessness of said search. The other tests may be valid, but so is criticism of this one. Still, you're free to defend it.
From the second linked article:
An example for Google UK is the search for the word "shelving"... On the main Google search for the same phrase, the results return 1 site that sells shelving, 6 shopping portals, 2 Universities and 1 Amazon store. Yet previously these results showed 9 shelving suppliers.
What does this guy expect? He searches on a single word and expects that every result be a retailer? Why not add some extra terms, like "buy" or "seller" or "retail" after that, buddy?
Seriously, should I start crying foul when I search Google for "dog" and it returns information on breeds rather than specific pet-stores?
...is no substitute for a business plan.
So some people are trying to cheat the system, and Google is taking steps to prevent this. Good for them, I say. I'm tired of getting pages that appear to be legitimate, only to find that they're just redirect fillers.
As for Google's practices in general, retailers are free to moan and groan about their rankings, but there is no obligation for Google to specifically cater to their needs. If Google decided to change its algorithms, such that all links were turned alphabetically rather than by PageRank, they would be well within their rights to do so. Of course, I imagine that such a move would result in many people seeking other search engines soon enough.
D'oh, I'm obviously on crack, having completely misunderstood the question. Ignore the ramblings of this madman.
Could this type of language be used in the future to ease natural language processing pains?
You mean like the roaring success of esperanto?
Long-distance communication benefits aside, this is just another language that would have to be learned by two parties as a common basis. Any language, either English (which is rapidly dominating the globe) or Finnish (random choice) could be substituted given a significant number of interested individuals.
It is impressive, though. Certainly must make good party tricks.
...until there are a flood of posters who mistakenly assume that the headline refers to Apple trying to claim ownership of the shareware concept? Perhaps "Apple Claims Ownership of Netflix" would have been better.
I wish Moore's law applied to the speed of lawsuits as well.
Actually, Moore's Law applies to the number of lawsuits today.
the system consists of Kernel, several GUI's, several editors, several server-tools, developement-tools, games, apps, office-suites, several browsers, several mail-clients. etc.
Indeed, many of the "security holes" previously cited by Microsoft-backed "researchers" are in supplemental packages or applications, rather than in the OS itself. For each KaZaA-based worm, does that say that Windows has a security flaw in it? Not necessarily. The application is often to blame.
With that in mind, add up all of the flaws in Windows apps, and the number will probably be staggering.
My calculator can increment by 1 for a heck of a long time with total stability.
Not entirely true. While I agree that these voting machines should be little more than simple adding machines, consider the sources of user error:
Voters must accurately push the correct touch-screen entry.
On a calculator, this is equivalent to selecting the appropriate operation (ie. 'plus'). Accidentally tapping another button might not be immediately apparent.
Votes for multiple candidates must be tallied.
On a calculator, this is equivalent to multiple memory locations. What if you hit M2 instead of M3 when switching tallies? Now the wrong candidate has your vote.
Consider, also, a source of machine error:
Numeric representations are finite and/or approximations
In the article text, it was mentioned that memory cards filled up. This is like adding so many 1's that you get the all-too familiar "E" on your calculator. While most calculators can handle numbers that would easily cover the world's population several times over, it's worth noting.
Finally, two examples of accountability and verification:
Votes must be recountable
Most calculators store tallies quite well, but leave little means of tracing the input. If M2 contains the value "54", I can assume that 1 was added n times, but this is not always true. 54 could easily be 44 1's added to an erroneously entered 10, but I can't tell with only the final number.
The integrity of the processing software must be verified
Like any data-processing machine, someone's got to program it. If I programmed your calculator such that, after a memory location contained a value larger than 138,763, it omitted every other addition, would you notice right away? What if I "diverted" that tally to another memory location?
It's not only the stability of the machine, but the accuracy of the input on the first place. For the general public, however, it's mainly about the scheming to which you allude, and the last two points above.
On the other hand, as we all know, the DNC is hotly contested in court as possible free speech violations, among other things.
I could never understand why it's being pushed as a free speech violation so much. If I stood outside someone's house every night, shouting my own personal philosophies, I could easily be arrested for disturbing the peace. If that person sound-proofed their windows, I couldn't appeal to some higher authority about my freedom of speech being violated. Telemarketers, however, are free to call me every other day at dinnertime to try and flog their wares.
Yes, people have a right to speak, but that doesn't mean I have to listen to it. I should also have the right to "ignore" what's being said.
C:\> winword.exe
.___
// \
||@@|
|| ||
|\_||
\__/
_||_
It looks like you're trying to run a program. Would you like me to start WINWORD.EXE? [Y/N]
If users outside the US are OK with duplicating copyrighted material, they're most likely not going to comply with the GPL as we currently see it.
Yep, but there's not much you can do to curtail that. Piracy in the form of GPL violations occurs already. It's like students pinching source code for their projects -- some will do it simply because they can. And yes, the number of violations would likely increase if it was mandatory to use products under said license. You could try taking the matter up with courts if it comes down to a compliance showdown, though when things fall outside of your own country, they're not so clear-cut.
Realistically, it's far easier for most people (read: non-programmers) to simply burn a copy of a pre-made application (whether proprietary or Open Source) than it is to actively develop and/or modify a new application using an Open Source basis, so the number of people taking-and-hoarding GPL'd software won't be that dramatic on the whole. If they copy an Open Source program and make no modifications, it's fine and dandy anyway. If they do, the issue shifts (as you point out) from not making money off of a commercial product to denying others the right to use your changes.
I suspect that the major piracy issue that is a concern here deals with money, rather than "academic" (for lack of a better word) advancement.
I doubt people here would want Open Source to be used widely at the cost of destroying the model.
Well, proprietary commercial software generally has a strict model whereby people who violate its license can be prosecuted. The fact that a significant portion of the population has unauthorized copies of a major operating system doesn't invalidate the model. It may be hard to enforce, but its validity remains intact. The one area in which Open Source may have a problem is coming up with the funds to pursue violations.
I'd love to see the patch they came up with for preventing a local user from crashing the system.
Apple Security Update
October 28, 2003
This update applies to computers running Mac OS X, any version.
Requirements
The following tools will be required to update your computer:
- Screwdriver
- Hammer (optional)
- Hacksaw (optional)
Updating Your ComputerTo update your computer, perform the following steps:
- Ensure that your computer is turned off.
- Using the screwdriver, pry open the case to your computer. Use the hammer and hacksaw, if necessary.
- Locate the power switch contact, and remove it from the computer. Again, use the hammer and hacksaw if necessary.
- Reassemble any intact pieces of your computer.
This update will ensure that local users cannot crash your system.Nation's solution to software piracy: "Eliminate Microsoft"
Surely this will only shift the piracy to open-source applications. Why, by 2005, I'll bet there will be hundreds -- nay, thousands! -- of copies of Redhat and Mandrake circulating around Vietnam for free! And thousands of applications too! The horror!
Despite my hard drive's dedicated service, I'm aware that it will someday fail.
In terms of storage efficiency, nothing beats the naggy girlfriend:
The downside, though, is the insanely high maintenance fee. Noisy too.
So now there will be a "very expensive trial" to evaluate the "free trial" claim?
This artcical says 23 exabytes.
Indeed, the numbers are correct, but they represent two different things.
The researchers concluded that the amount of new information produced last year was about 23 exabytes... The amount of new but stored (non-transmitted) information in 2002 was determined to be about five exabytes.
The researchers are now working with companies to develop a mail screening system that could suit use in post offices and airports.
I was just thinking that it was about time we cracked down on those methed-out mailmen and pilots.
Oh, for mail...
I would love to see how you would defend the theft of my work.
I wouldn't. There's a reason the post was modded "funny".
Literary Law Guide begins by explaining copyright in great depth.
I agree. I downloaded the book off of Kazaa and thought the whole discussion concerning copyrights was well done.
The proceeds from a gasoline tax ought to be used to finance cuts in other taxes.
"Ought to" usually means "never will" in situations like this, no?
I'm all for clean alternatives, but I can't see the government funneling a whole lot of their cash cow into new fuel sources. Wouldn't tax breaks (for those who choose clean) be more appropriate than tax increases (for those who don't)?
Branding goes hand-in-hand with a large marketing strategy designed to get that brand into the mind of the consumer. How does Mozilla accomplish this, exactly?
At the moment, they don't, but this is precisely what needs to be done. Brand the image and increase the word-of-mouth.
But it doesn't have to be. Anyone contributor with some free time can do simple things that would help -- common icons, logos, etc. The entire image doesn't need to be reworked, but small things can be.
But how many people out there, if you were to ask them what a little green chameleon makes them think of, would say Suse?
The same applied to all logos out there at one point. McDonald's? Nike? MS Windows? Obviously, only someone familiar with the company will identify the logo. But make that logo something memorable (or easier to remember, in any case), and more people will want to find out what it is.
I hear what you're saying, but I can't see how this would be a bad idea outright for the Moz team.
I'd like Mozilla more if I didnt look like a dinosaur geek everytime it starts up.
At least this one issue is relatively easy to fix.
The main reason you'd want to brand is to leave an imprint in the mind of somebody who's a potential consumer... But really, at this point, why bother?
For the exact reason you state: the potential consumers. Branding would be useful in getting more people to give ol' Moz a try. One of the main things about the average surfer, I find, is that (s)he simply doesn't know about it.
The 49g+ boasts features such as: USB and IrDA connectivity, a 75MHz ARM CPU, 2MB of flash, and an SD card slot.
And it adds too!