Good ol' Slashdot. Where mentions of a "soul" bring countless references to the Simpsons and the episode where Bart sells his soul, but none (that I saw) referring to Faust (sold his soul), South Korea (Captial: Seoul), Dr. Scholl's (in-soles), New Orleans (soul food) or Marvin Gaye (soul music).
Except that the open textbook project could gain monetary benefit - and the copyright holder could make a claim to those benefits. Likewise, the copyright holder could sue for any lost revenue. I'd hope a takedown notice would be the first step, but we know that many copyright holders are not so kind.
My profs often had no idea how expensive the textbooks were. One professor, bless him, found out that his recommended book was $70 and he immediately told us not to buy it (or return it if you had).
We used a lot of course packets, too. They get expensive when they're hundreds of pages, so many profs began just giving us links to the articles and letting us print them ourselves if we wanted them on paper.
Our University Bookstore was outrageous; if you can buy elsewhere, do it!
The parent post isn't off-topic; if you open a project up to public input and contribution, you'll also be open to those that want to contribute worthlessness.
The most dangerous thing I can think of is a user contributing materials that they don't have the right to use. A solid lawsuit might knock the entire project off its feet.
Most trolls or crapfloods can be easily found and deleted, but someone who contributes useful (but illegally used) information might never be detected. How do you account for such users and posts?
There are a lot of products intended to deal with your abundance of remotes. Of course, many of them are more difficult to use than it's worth, and some of them cost hundreds of dollars.
Which leads me to my main point - convergence of devices that I use on a regular basis will be a bad idea.
I want a small phone (I keep it with me everywhere). I want a big computer screen and a keyboard that's big enough to type fast on. I want a PDA that can integrate with my other computers, but allows me to use the stylus. I want a digital camera that I can take decent photos with for prints or posting on the web.
Am I asking too much? Look at all the products out there designed to address exactly what I listed above, and not only are they way more expensive than I would ever pay.... but they fail to do any of the things I described, at least to the extent that I want them there.
Sysadmins will always be needed because technology doesn't stand still. Ten years ago, a sysadmin was responsible for different systems, different technologies, and different processes. Add in wireless, PDAs, GPS, etc. and you see the point - new tech means new things to learn, new responsibilities, and that much more job security.
Thumbs down to not having high definition. Comcast doesn't offer it in my area yet - and the few HD broadcasts don't justify buying an HD tuner at this point. So frustrating... and with a 57" HD monitor, too.
When HD is a reality for me, then I'll care. Not to belittle your complaints, but I'm still bitter that I don't have it. Argh.
From the front page of www.byopvr.com: "I'm very sorry that our modest hosting buckled under the strain."
As a result of the CNN/Yahoo article(s), no less. Just wait until they see what Slashdot can do!
BTW, this is the exact site for me. I've been talking about doing this for a while, and every time I see an article on Slashdot I get a little closer to actually building one. I'm really excited now.
I have a whole list of bookmarks for my naughty traffic.
Seriously, though... I have a spare wireless router set up at work that's easily hacked, easily found, and logs every damn thing that touches it. Our real wireless network is obscured, encrypted, mac filtered, etc. I realize it's not technically the same thing as the post describes (I guess you'd call it a honeypot network or something) but it's the same idea.
Of course, nobody will care if a hacker makes his way into our network (honeypot or not) unless he does some "damage."
Great ideas. I have something similar on my site - I'll be sure to try some of those (meanwhile hoping that your email address doesn't end with @sco.com).
That's actually a good recommendation. You could still rank the site because it has the link, but detach the link from the label.
What if a site does not contain any text - like a blank page with a flash movie on it? You'd still want it to be found through Google, but there would be no way of knowing what search terms should find it without using the label from the linking site.
I didn't realize that a script could handle cookies so easily. Perhaps I should just stick with my first plan to use a "type in these fuzzy-looking letters and numbers" method.
Of course, I'm also requiring logins for most things.
1. The problem still exists on the side of the provider with the links. Who coordinated these million links that resulted in the "Google bomb?" Why not complain to them?
2. Is it really a problem? Google has no public responsibility to report rankings according to the demand of anyone; if they wish to block Linux altogether and replace Linus/OSS searches with Microsoft-sponsored results, they can do so. But it would hurt their business and credibility. I'm confused as to why people think that they have any right to dictate how Google should run their company or rank the search results.
There was a Jewish group that complained to Google because some searches returned an anti-semitic website. After removing the link for a brief period, they put it back up because it was there as a result of honest ranking through their algorithm. While I don't enjoy seeing such a result, I defend their (the site's) ability to say what they wish and Google's decision to rank sites as they see fit.
Google is number one because they do things better than anyone else. Your last sentence, "fix it now before it gets to be a real problem" is ridiculous - what "real problem" could there ever possibly be as a result of search engine rankings?
As my site grows, I'm thinking about adding a mechanism to address those issues: when the user requests a page for the first time, he'll get a session value that says he's a valid visitor to the site. When he submits a comment, he has to have that value, or comments aren't allowed. I don't know how you'd write a script to circumvent that. (If someone can tell me, I'd love to know so I try to prevent it!)
Google's algorithm isn't the problem. The problem is the availability of easily abused areas such as these "sandboxes."
Some search engines accept any old site. Others accept sites based on human approval and categorization. Google is a nice combination of the two - by using outside references (counting how often the site is linked) it assumes that the site is more relevant. Because other people have put links on their sites. That's a human factor, without directly using human beings to review and categorize the sites and rankings.
Sure it can be abused, but it's not Google's fault; perhaps these areas of abuse (blogs, wikis, etc.) should address the problems from their end.
Some of my web applications use pop-ups (never for ads, though). Not a single one of them gets blocked by the Google toolbar pop-up blocker. Since some of those pop-ups are necessary for running the app, I was glad to discover this. But I've always wondered why that is.
Aside from his rants and the conclusions that lack any logical progression, there is a good point underlying much of his "reasoning." Linux is not an entity, and cannot be held responsible any more than "P2P" can.
This isn't just a legal issue; in order to gain significant market share, earn the trust of potential users, and develop with a strong backbone in a reliable direction, Linux must be accountable. Users have to be able to turn to someone/somewhere for support, for resources, for guidance; because there is no single authority over Linux, many companies and users are uncomfortable with it.
As for the legal issues, we've seen this play out already. SCO claims to own IP, and without a single entity to fight back it has been difficult to put and end to that nonsense. Because there's nobody to sue directly, SCO resorts to picking on individuals/corporations. The RIAA sued Napster, MP3.com, Kazaa, etc. because they put a face to a problem (P2P). While P2P thrives on the "anonymity" factor, Linux does not. This Ken Brown realizes this, perhaps unconsciously, and while he does not attack that directly he does recognize the consequences.
What's the solution? I dunno. But companies like RedHat are a traditional solution - form an entity that can be held responsible, and hope that the rewards are worth it.
So... you don't think there were any more than three decent movies or television shows produced in the last decade?
I voted with my money by going to see movies that I knew would be worth the money, such as Lord of the Rings. I also paid for other, less "decent" movies that would be enjoyable and entertaining.
Boycott a site because it runs ads (likely served by an outside provider) that you don't like?
I realize it's a sore subject when you bring up capitalism within a community that shouts FREE from the top of its lungs, but your request bothers me. Are you afraid that LinuxToday users are going to convert to Windows because of a banner ad? Or that Microsoft is going to influence those masses of Linux users?
Slashdot Mirror
Good ol' Slashdot. Where mentions of a "soul" bring countless references to the Simpsons and the episode where Bart sells his soul, but none (that I saw) referring to Faust (sold his soul), South Korea (Captial: Seoul), Dr. Scholl's (in-soles), New Orleans (soul food) or Marvin Gaye (soul music).
Except that the open textbook project could gain monetary benefit - and the copyright holder could make a claim to those benefits. Likewise, the copyright holder could sue for any lost revenue. I'd hope a takedown notice would be the first step, but we know that many copyright holders are not so kind.
My profs often had no idea how expensive the textbooks were. One professor, bless him, found out that his recommended book was $70 and he immediately told us not to buy it (or return it if you had).
We used a lot of course packets, too. They get expensive when they're hundreds of pages, so many profs began just giving us links to the articles and letting us print them ourselves if we wanted them on paper.
Our University Bookstore was outrageous; if you can buy elsewhere, do it!
Bad moderation alert!
The parent post isn't off-topic; if you open a project up to public input and contribution, you'll also be open to those that want to contribute worthlessness.
The most dangerous thing I can think of is a user contributing materials that they don't have the right to use. A solid lawsuit might knock the entire project off its feet.
Most trolls or crapfloods can be easily found and deleted, but someone who contributes useful (but illegally used) information might never be detected. How do you account for such users and posts?
There are a lot of products intended to deal with your abundance of remotes. Of course, many of them are more difficult to use than it's worth, and some of them cost hundreds of dollars.
Which leads me to my main point - convergence of devices that I use on a regular basis will be a bad idea.
I want a small phone (I keep it with me everywhere). I want a big computer screen and a keyboard that's big enough to type fast on. I want a PDA that can integrate with my other computers, but allows me to use the stylus. I want a digital camera that I can take decent photos with for prints or posting on the web.
Am I asking too much? Look at all the products out there designed to address exactly what I listed above, and not only are they way more expensive than I would ever pay.... but they fail to do any of the things I described, at least to the extent that I want them there.
Simplicity = usability
No, we just need better movies to want to display them.
10 February 2004
That's my birthday... coincidence? I think not.
Now I just need to figure out which of my many admirers would write a cell phone worm as a gift for me.
You'd think that they would have learned their lesson from Lynyrd Skynyrd...
If you don't get it, you need to stop listening to Top 40.
Sysadmins will always be needed because technology doesn't stand still. Ten years ago, a sysadmin was responsible for different systems, different technologies, and different processes. Add in wireless, PDAs, GPS, etc. and you see the point - new tech means new things to learn, new responsibilities, and that much more job security.
"It's not The Oldest Profession..."
Long hours, weekends/holidays, on-call, bad pay... I sure feel like a corporate whore.
Thumbs up to Alias.
Thumbs down to not having high definition. Comcast doesn't offer it in my area yet - and the few HD broadcasts don't justify buying an HD tuner at this point. So frustrating... and with a 57" HD monitor, too.
When HD is a reality for me, then I'll care. Not to belittle your complaints, but I'm still bitter that I don't have it. Argh.
From the front page of www.byopvr.com: "I'm very sorry that our modest hosting buckled under the strain."
As a result of the CNN/Yahoo article(s), no less. Just wait until they see what Slashdot can do!
BTW, this is the exact site for me. I've been talking about doing this for a while, and every time I see an article on Slashdot I get a little closer to actually building one. I'm really excited now.
I have a whole list of bookmarks for my naughty traffic.
Seriously, though... I have a spare wireless router set up at work that's easily hacked, easily found, and logs every damn thing that touches it. Our real wireless network is obscured, encrypted, mac filtered, etc. I realize it's not technically the same thing as the post describes (I guess you'd call it a honeypot network or something) but it's the same idea.
Of course, nobody will care if a hacker makes his way into our network (honeypot or not) unless he does some "damage."
Great ideas. I have something similar on my site - I'll be sure to try some of those (meanwhile hoping that your email address doesn't end with @sco.com).
That's actually a good recommendation. You could still rank the site because it has the link, but detach the link from the label.
What if a site does not contain any text - like a blank page with a flash movie on it? You'd still want it to be found through Google, but there would be no way of knowing what search terms should find it without using the label from the linking site.
I didn't realize that a script could handle cookies so easily. Perhaps I should just stick with my first plan to use a "type in these fuzzy-looking letters and numbers" method.
Of course, I'm also requiring logins for most things.
Two issues here:
1. The problem still exists on the side of the provider with the links. Who coordinated these million links that resulted in the "Google bomb?" Why not complain to them?
2. Is it really a problem? Google has no public responsibility to report rankings according to the demand of anyone; if they wish to block Linux altogether and replace Linus/OSS searches with Microsoft-sponsored results, they can do so. But it would hurt their business and credibility. I'm confused as to why people think that they have any right to dictate how Google should run their company or rank the search results.
There was a Jewish group that complained to Google because some searches returned an anti-semitic website. After removing the link for a brief period, they put it back up because it was there as a result of honest ranking through their algorithm. While I don't enjoy seeing such a result, I defend their (the site's) ability to say what they wish and Google's decision to rank sites as they see fit.
Google is number one because they do things better than anyone else. Your last sentence, "fix it now before it gets to be a real problem" is ridiculous - what "real problem" could there ever possibly be as a result of search engine rankings?
As my site grows, I'm thinking about adding a mechanism to address those issues: when the user requests a page for the first time, he'll get a session value that says he's a valid visitor to the site. When he submits a comment, he has to have that value, or comments aren't allowed. I don't know how you'd write a script to circumvent that. (If someone can tell me, I'd love to know so I try to prevent it!)
Google's algorithm isn't the problem. The problem is the availability of easily abused areas such as these "sandboxes."
Some search engines accept any old site. Others accept sites based on human approval and categorization. Google is a nice combination of the two - by using outside references (counting how often the site is linked) it assumes that the site is more relevant. Because other people have put links on their sites. That's a human factor, without directly using human beings to review and categorize the sites and rankings.
Sure it can be abused, but it's not Google's fault; perhaps these areas of abuse (blogs, wikis, etc.) should address the problems from their end.
Some of my web applications use pop-ups (never for ads, though). Not a single one of them gets blocked by the Google toolbar pop-up blocker. Since some of those pop-ups are necessary for running the app, I was glad to discover this. But I've always wondered why that is.
"Apparently John Ashcroft can't tell a weapons lab from an art installation."
I believe that should read: "Apparently John Ashcroft can't tell his head from his ass."
Aside from his rants and the conclusions that lack any logical progression, there is a good point underlying much of his "reasoning." Linux is not an entity, and cannot be held responsible any more than "P2P" can.
This isn't just a legal issue; in order to gain significant market share, earn the trust of potential users, and develop with a strong backbone in a reliable direction, Linux must be accountable. Users have to be able to turn to someone/somewhere for support, for resources, for guidance; because there is no single authority over Linux, many companies and users are uncomfortable with it.
As for the legal issues, we've seen this play out already. SCO claims to own IP, and without a single entity to fight back it has been difficult to put and end to that nonsense. Because there's nobody to sue directly, SCO resorts to picking on individuals/corporations. The RIAA sued Napster, MP3.com, Kazaa, etc. because they put a face to a problem (P2P). While P2P thrives on the "anonymity" factor, Linux does not. This Ken Brown realizes this, perhaps unconsciously, and while he does not attack that directly he does recognize the consequences.
What's the solution? I dunno. But companies like RedHat are a traditional solution - form an entity that can be held responsible, and hope that the rewards are worth it.
So... you don't think there were any more than three decent movies or television shows produced in the last decade?
I voted with my money by going to see movies that I knew would be worth the money, such as Lord of the Rings. I also paid for other, less "decent" movies that would be enjoyable and entertaining.
Boycott a site because it runs ads (likely served by an outside provider) that you don't like?
I realize it's a sore subject when you bring up capitalism within a community that shouts FREE from the top of its lungs, but your request bothers me. Are you afraid that LinuxToday users are going to convert to Windows because of a banner ad? Or that Microsoft is going to influence those masses of Linux users?
Am I right in guessing that you have a projector? Or did you answer one of those "turn any TV into a big screen!!!1" offers?