I'm looking for a clean, fast, non-buggy alternative to the google giant. Preferably open source.
Any suggestions?
The only big one I know of right now is Nutch. It is an open source search engine that is in the later stages of development, but hasn't produced a large, usable site yet.
Have you ever heard the old adage that a squirrel could walk from Maine to Florida without touching the ground?
I have never heard that in my life.
I'm not arguing that trees haven't been cut down. They certainly have. I'm saying that the amount of trees has not decreased. In many areas it has increased since the land was settled.
The only land that has really lost trees are areas that have had homes and cities built over them. Even places that have been logged are generally replanted. The loggers have to plan for their futures as well.
I find the term old-growth to be a distraction on this topic. With few exceptions, it does not matter if a tree is 25 years old, or 125 years old. Old-growth forests have young trees in them and old trees die there too. The point is, large, wooded areas sustain vast amounts of wildlife. And as long as there's a ton of forests out there, I don't see the value in attaching the emotional tag of old-growth to trees.
No, he was more likely modded down because he doesn't understand the scientific process, despite his claim to kinda so. It's neither relevant, nor accurate.
I disagree with you on both counts, but for the sake of argument, lets say you are right, and that he is completely wrong. If that were the case, the appropriate thing to do is to reply stating you think he is wrong and why (some people did this). The innapropriate thing to do is to mod him down because you disagree with him. That happened also. That is the worst form of censorship - trying to hide his ideas because you disagree with them. If you have the intellect and the prowess to debate him, then do it in your post. Show people your ideas and why you think them better, but don't mod an oponent down because you disagree. Doing so only exposes your shallowness of intellectual and philosophical thought.
The word you here is aimed at the moderators, not the author of the parent.
At the time of this posting, the parent has been modded down as overrated and flamebait just because he doesn't subscribe to some form of secular scientism. Grow up.
If you disagree with they guy, say so. But don't mod him down because he beleives in God. Go ahead and read the post. It's very insightful/interesting. It's a relevant and accurate observation about science and religion. Kudos to you for thinking on your own.
Many forests around the world have been significantly depleted, but the myth of deforestation in the U.S. is just that, a myth. There hasn't been a significant decrease in plantlife except in very urban areas, like New York.
Also, on a world wide scale, much of the plantlife that handles the CO2 issue is in the ocean. I don't remember the number, but something like 70% of the CO2 converting plants live in the ocean. I think that's the bigger issue.
This ought to help the unemployment rate, as there will be a new employment opportunities in the poop-picking-up field. Someone has got to walk around the field collecting this stuff if they're going to burn it, after all. What a great opportunity! Virtually no training or education requited. If you walk a dob in the city, you are already a seasoned professional, and could quickly rise to management level.
I also see a new market opening for human droppings. Why limit ourselves to animal manure? People donate plasma for a pocketful of money don't they? Why not have pay toilets pay us?!
All of this is good news for out-of-work and soon-to-be-out-of-work programmers!... until they start shipping in poop from India.
Until then, SPEWS and other blocklists are the most effective way to get rid of spam. Of course they are not ideal. But they work.
I agree with you that other blacklists are a good way to hinder spam - the responsible ones at least. I think blacklists are a good idea if implimented well. And there are a lot that are implimented well, SPEWS just isn't one of them.
If your IP block got in the blacklist, then your ISP put their head in the sand, and if you didn't complain to your ISP and changed ISP when they didn't act, you put your head in the sand as well.
You have done something wrong: you continue to support an ISP that doesn't terminate spammers.
Utter B.S. I've done something wrong for not solving the spam problem myself? Save your anger for the spammers. You don't sound reasonable. I'm not willing to switch my companies ISP every time SPEWS suggest I do so, especially considering how untrustworthy SPEWS is!
Also, SPEWS boasts about its knee-jerk reactions to spam, saying they start blacklisting as soon they see suspicious emails. Dosn't sound like they work very well with ISPs. And the concept of blocking entire IP blocks due to a handful of spammers is rediculous. I do not like spam. But SPEWS goes too far.
You seem to know your stuff, so I'm going to go ahead and assume I was confused about IP vs TM and consider myself corrected. Thanks for the correct info.
The point is, I shouldn't have to change my IP address just because SPEWS is too aggressive. I haven't done anything wrong, and my ISP isn't pro-spam either. Do you know of a major, public ISP that has never had a spammer use their modem pools? I don't. I might go through all whe work to move my company to another ISP, only to be blacklisted for something else I didn't do.
The problem with SPEWS is their shoot-first-ask-later policy. They even brag about that on their website. They don't care how many innocents they take down because they are convinced that their cause is just. Sort of sounds like a terrorist on a holy war if you ask me. That is why they have lost respect in the eyes of so many.
Perhaps you are right and I am confusing trademark with IP. But I don't think you can successfully apply for and use a patent after the cat's out of the bag. For instance, I think the situation is different if someone tries to collect on a patent filed ten years ago, versus someone trying to patent something today that has been in use for ten years (as in the situation the original poster noted). Still, I could be wrong, and I wouldn't bet my life that what I just said is write - recolection is a fickle thing.
I don't think they would get very far since command lines are used so much by so many people. If you do have a legitimate claim to IP, you must make an honest effort to protect it or you lose it. For instance, you can't develop a data structure, patent it, let everyone use it as if you had not IP rights - then after a lot of people use and depend on it, start enforcing your rights. The judge should throw you out for that. You have to show that you at least tried to enforce your IP rights from the beginning, or they are gone.
Our company has a dedicated server with a static IP. We were blacklisted because other addresses in our IP block were spamming, so they listed the entire block of addresses. Like using a shotgun in a crowded public area - "At least we got the guy we were aiming for!" Way to go SPEWS!
I'm no spam fan, but some of the spam blocking services out there are becoming overzealous. Ever heard the saying "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water"? It is better to get a few spam emails than to have an important email blocked.
Through a series of events that were no fault of my own, I was black listed in one of the spammer databases! I'm speaking specifically of SPEWS here, which in my opinion is the most reckless, least responsible one out there.
I went to their website to get my address cleared, and the faq basically says, "So sorry you're in our database. You're screwed, we'll never take you out."
I have countless emails returned to me every day from people who's email service checks SPEWS. I have to call each IT department to get whitelisted, which is a huge waste of my time.
My point here is that even though in this particular case the guy actually IS a spammer, there has to be some level of accountability for spam blocking services. If they go telling everyone you are a spammer and that no one should listen to you, they'd better be right, or they are committing a form of libel.
A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft provides funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. ...
Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment on whether the company directly sponsored the debate paper. De Tocqueville Institute president Ken Brown and chairman Gregory Fossedal refused to comment on whether Microsoft sponsored the report.
Alexis de Tocqueville was a jackass and the institute that bears his name doesn't seem much better.
IBM will be going head to head with Linux why? IBM makes money consulting and selling hardware. They say, "We have this great mainframe for $200,000 that runs Linux. It's fast, scalable and dependable." That is of great value to them. OS2 was no cash cow. That's why they've moved in the direction they have. That's why they're spending so much money to help develop Linux - it is GOOD for them.
Does he deserve to get in to the hall of fame? Absolutely. Does he deserve his own religion? Probably not.
I agree completely. He is a good programmer and has orchestrated a wonderful OS. But he is a man with human flaws and when he is old enough, he will die.
More importantly, some of the competing nominees pioneered computing. They did something that no one else had ever done, or had ever thought of doing. Separate those people out from the people who just did a really good job, and the list shortens considerably (though not less than 5).
I consider Linus Torvalds to be one of the people who took what was available and improved on it immensely. But there were lots of OS's around already, including Minix. He helped kick start Free and Open Software, but did not originate that either. Von Neuman or Zues on the other hand, started with nothing and built the foundations for computing. That's what I think of when deciding who to vote for.
...while falsely identifying four objects as faces.
That's interesting. The AI is sufficient to identify most faces. And it sees a few faces where none exists - not unlike people. Little kids point out when their bananas, carrots and peas line up just right to make a face. If they see it, why shouldn't a computer? What about the moon? Would this software see a face there? A man maybe?
There is no point to this, just interesting thoughts that struck me while reading.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a very interesting article.
Sig
--
KEY PHRASE <A HREF=www.my_website.com> KEYWORD KEYWORD KEYWORD <\A>
I'm looking for a clean, fast, non-buggy alternative to the google giant. Preferably open source.
Any suggestions?
The only big one I know of right now is Nutch. It is an open source search engine that is in the later stages of development, but hasn't produced a large, usable site yet.
nutch.org
Since it will be open source, you will be able to read the ranking algorithms and change/abuse them as you see fit.
This one http://search.mnogo.ru/ is also available.
Have you ever heard the old adage that a squirrel could walk from Maine to Florida without touching the ground?
I have never heard that in my life.
I'm not arguing that trees haven't been cut down. They certainly have. I'm saying that the amount of trees has not decreased. In many areas it has increased since the land was settled.
The only land that has really lost trees are areas that have had homes and cities built over them. Even places that have been logged are generally replanted. The loggers have to plan for their futures as well.
I find the term old-growth to be a distraction on this topic. With few exceptions, it does not matter if a tree is 25 years old, or 125 years old. Old-growth forests have young trees in them and old trees die there too. The point is, large, wooded areas sustain vast amounts of wildlife. And as long as there's a ton of forests out there, I don't see the value in attaching the emotional tag of old-growth to trees.
No, he was more likely modded down because he doesn't understand the scientific process, despite his claim to kinda so. It's neither relevant, nor accurate.
I disagree with you on both counts, but for the sake of argument, lets say you are right, and that he is completely wrong. If that were the case, the appropriate thing to do is to reply stating you think he is wrong and why (some people did this). The innapropriate thing to do is to mod him down because you disagree with him. That happened also. That is the worst form of censorship - trying to hide his ideas because you disagree with them. If you have the intellect and the prowess to debate him, then do it in your post. Show people your ideas and why you think them better, but don't mod an oponent down because you disagree. Doing so only exposes your shallowness of intellectual and philosophical thought.
The word you here is aimed at the moderators, not the author of the parent.
At the time of this posting, the parent has been modded down as overrated and flamebait just because he doesn't subscribe to some form of secular scientism. Grow up.
If you disagree with they guy, say so. But don't mod him down because he beleives in God. Go ahead and read the post. It's very insightful/interesting. It's a relevant and accurate observation about science and religion. Kudos to you for thinking on your own.
Without forrest like we used to have...
Many forests around the world have been significantly depleted, but the myth of deforestation in the U.S. is just that, a myth. There hasn't been a significant decrease in plantlife except in very urban areas, like New York.
Also, on a world wide scale, much of the plantlife that handles the CO2 issue is in the ocean. I don't remember the number, but something like 70% of the CO2 converting plants live in the ocean. I think that's the bigger issue.
This ought to help the unemployment rate, as there will be a new employment opportunities in the poop-picking-up field. Someone has got to walk around the field collecting this stuff if they're going to burn it, after all. What a great opportunity! Virtually no training or education requited. If you walk a dob in the city, you are already a seasoned professional, and could quickly rise to management level.
... until they start shipping in poop from India.
I also see a new market opening for human droppings. Why limit ourselves to animal manure? People donate plasma for a pocketful of money don't they? Why not have pay toilets pay us?!
All of this is good news for out-of-work and soon-to-be-out-of-work programmers!
...but i'll take a shitload of fuel to power a city.
Until then, SPEWS and other blocklists are the most effective way to get rid of spam. Of course they are not ideal. But they work.
I agree with you that other blacklists are a good way to hinder spam - the responsible ones at least. I think blacklists are a good idea if implimented well. And there are a lot that are implimented well, SPEWS just isn't one of them.
If your IP block got in the blacklist, then your ISP put their head in the sand, and if you didn't complain to your ISP and changed ISP when they didn't act, you put your head in the sand as well.
You have done something wrong: you continue to support an ISP that doesn't terminate spammers.
Utter B.S. I've done something wrong for not solving the spam problem myself? Save your anger for the spammers. You don't sound reasonable. I'm not willing to switch my companies ISP every time SPEWS suggest I do so, especially considering how untrustworthy SPEWS is!
Also, SPEWS boasts about its knee-jerk reactions to spam, saying they start blacklisting as soon they see suspicious emails. Dosn't sound like they work very well with ISPs. And the concept of blocking entire IP blocks due to a handful of spammers is rediculous. I do not like spam. But SPEWS goes too far.
You seem to know your stuff, so I'm going to go ahead and assume I was confused about IP vs TM and consider myself corrected. Thanks for the correct info.
The point is, I shouldn't have to change my IP address just because SPEWS is too aggressive. I haven't done anything wrong, and my ISP isn't pro-spam either. Do you know of a major, public ISP that has never had a spammer use their modem pools? I don't. I might go through all whe work to move my company to another ISP, only to be blacklisted for something else I didn't do.
The problem with SPEWS is their shoot-first-ask-later policy. They even brag about that on their website. They don't care how many innocents they take down because they are convinced that their cause is just. Sort of sounds like a terrorist on a holy war if you ask me. That is why they have lost respect in the eyes of so many.
Perhaps you are right and I am confusing trademark with IP. But I don't think you can successfully apply for and use a patent after the cat's out of the bag. For instance, I think the situation is different if someone tries to collect on a patent filed ten years ago, versus someone trying to patent something today that has been in use for ten years (as in the situation the original poster noted). Still, I could be wrong, and I wouldn't bet my life that what I just said is write - recolection is a fickle thing.
I don't think they would get very far since command lines are used so much by so many people. If you do have a legitimate claim to IP, you must make an honest effort to protect it or you lose it. For instance, you can't develop a data structure, patent it, let everyone use it as if you had not IP rights - then after a lot of people use and depend on it, start enforcing your rights. The judge should throw you out for that. You have to show that you at least tried to enforce your IP rights from the beginning, or they are gone.
Thank you for that post. Much of what you said matches my thoughts exactly - but you worded it better than I might have. I agree completely.
You are mistaken. And I have read the SPEWS FAQ.
SPEWS sucks and that's that.
Our company has a dedicated server with a static IP. We were blacklisted because other addresses in our IP block were spamming, so they listed the entire block of addresses. Like using a shotgun in a crowded public area - "At least we got the guy we were aiming for!" Way to go SPEWS!
I'm no spam fan, but some of the spam blocking services out there are becoming overzealous. Ever heard the saying "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water"? It is better to get a few spam emails than to have an important email blocked.
Through a series of events that were no fault of my own, I was black listed in one of the spammer databases! I'm speaking specifically of SPEWS here, which in my opinion is the most reckless, least responsible one out there.
I went to their website to get my address cleared, and the faq basically says, "So sorry you're in our database. You're screwed, we'll never take you out."
I have countless emails returned to me every day from people who's email service checks SPEWS. I have to call each IT department to get whitelisted, which is a huge waste of my time.
My point here is that even though in this particular case the guy actually IS a spammer, there has to be some level of accountability for spam blocking services. If they go telling everyone you are a spammer and that no one should listen to you, they'd better be right, or they are committing a form of libel.
Best information from Wired:
...
A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft provides funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.
Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment on whether the company directly sponsored the debate paper. De Tocqueville Institute president Ken Brown and chairman Gregory Fossedal refused to comment on whether Microsoft sponsored the report.
Just one more independant review - my ass.
Alexis de Tocqueville was a jackass and the institute that bears his name doesn't seem much better.
IBM will be going head to head with Linux why? IBM makes money consulting and selling hardware. They say, "We have this great mainframe for $200,000 that runs Linux. It's fast, scalable and dependable." That is of great value to them. OS2 was no cash cow. That's why they've moved in the direction they have. That's why they're spending so much money to help develop Linux - it is GOOD for them.
Does he deserve to get in to the hall of fame? Absolutely. Does he deserve his own religion? Probably not.
I agree completely. He is a good programmer and has orchestrated a wonderful OS. But he is a man with human flaws and when he is old enough, he will die.
More importantly, some of the competing nominees pioneered computing. They did something that no one else had ever done, or had ever thought of doing. Separate those people out from the people who just did a really good job, and the list shortens considerably (though not less than 5). I consider Linus Torvalds to be one of the people who took what was available and improved on it immensely. But there were lots of OS's around already, including Minix. He helped kick start Free and Open Software, but did not originate that either. Von Neuman or Zues on the other hand, started with nothing and built the foundations for computing. That's what I think of when deciding who to vote for.
I bet it breaks if you pass it a test image of Michael Jackson.
give it to blind people so they can know who they're talking to
Two guys walk into a convenient store.
Angry man 1: "Empty the cash register into this back now mutha f'er!"
Angry man 2: "Get down! _shots-fired-into-air_ All of you Get down on the floor!"
Face recognition computer to blind man: "You are now speaking to Ronald Reagan and Ronald Reagan."
Or test it out on Tammy Faye Baker...
Which result would be correct?
...while falsely identifying four objects as faces.
That's interesting. The AI is sufficient to identify most faces. And it sees a few faces where none exists - not unlike people. Little kids point out when their bananas, carrots and peas line up just right to make a face. If they see it, why shouldn't a computer? What about the moon? Would this software see a face there? A man maybe?
There is no point to this, just interesting thoughts that struck me while reading.
Ah, yes. Here it is. It took me a while to find it.
2 57238&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=172&tid=187&tid=98&t id=99
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/03/0