They set up these bogus searches, and then sent people home to install the Bing toolbar (which explicitly collects browsing data to feed data to the search engine) and had them repeatedly hit these searches on Google (to submit a bogus association of that term to Bing). They in no way show that Google is targeted for anything. To test that, they would have to craft a similar page that would feed bogus data to bing via the toolbar and demonstate that in an equal situation, the link did not start appearing in Bing.
If millions of people link the word cars with Ford based on their browsing habits and suddenly google starts trying to linkt he word cars with Monsanto or some other unrelated company, it won't matter. However, when you take a unique string of letters, there is no other data available to show that the data is bad, so it was easy to poison the search DB and create an association of a given string with whatever they wanted to. The chose to use their search engine for the web pages accessed to create this link in order to be able to make these specious claims.
If their goal was to reverse engineer the way that the Bing toolbar data is used, they would have tried using other pages to do the same type of poisoning. If it only happened with the google search page, they would have a little bit of "proof". If it happened with any similar page they set up, it would show that the toolbar data is just aggregating traffic data and making connections between terms on a page and where they link to based on the links followed (wow, sounds a lot like how a sane search engine would collect data if the users allowed the click data to be collected) Their goal was FUD, and FUD by anyone is wrong. If I, in 5 minutes, can devise a more accurate way to test it, can you honestly say that the folks at Google didn't consider that this is very likely a totally generallized algorithm?
Which is exactly why when they fed the false data to bing via bing toolbar, it was easy to poison the results for it. There was no traffic data involving that term, and google generated a bunch of traffic for it. Suddenly the search engine sees the association of the nonsense word with the webpage and has no good data to compare it to because it's a unique string. Go figure... You seed the engine with bad data and it returns the bad data... They just used their search engine instead of some generic pages to be able to use this FUD line.
No because you're just incorrect. Google purposefully seeded information in to bing through the toolbar. They could have done the same with other web pages, but chose their search engine to spin it and make people assume exactly what you have.
The hijacking of DNS by webservers is particularly frustrating for those of us running networks for other purposes. I say stick with the www so that I stop getting requests to have internal websites' IP addresses resolve to the domain name of an AD domain, etc. Yes, technically I can make this work by running a web service on all of my domain controllers that redirects to www.[domain]. No, it won't happen.
It is pretty obvious that you are just making up "facts".
For one, MS volume licenses aren't full packed product licenses and are only upgrade licenses. OEM or boxed copies have to be purchased with the hardware to be license compliant, but hey, go ahead and make things up because it fits your world view.
But that's not what this discussion is about. The discussion is about the supposedly liberties supposedly ensured by that paper that our government supposedly is based upon. Attitudes like yours are why we have this sorry state of things. You cannot separate the means (invasive searches, circumvention of due process) from the ends (avoiding traffic fatalities and planes falling from the sky). In your head this creates a false equivalence between disliking the erosion of liberties and the support of something that no one in their right mind would support.
I really don't understand how this subset of people has become so prevalent, but it is somewhat alarming.
The problem with the "VOLUNTARY" argument is that when you use it, you're also implying that all cross-border travel is voluntary as well. Why does the mechanism allow for unreasonable search? You're driving your car? Oh, that's voluntary, so we can search you.
Not at all, but the poster's point was that certain knowledge is no longer necessary, freeing up our minds for other types.
Which is the more useful skill, knowing facts that a reasonably intelligent person from, say, 20 years ago knows or knowing the concepts and being able to rapidly find the relevant facts? One is a task well suited for the human brain (concepts, relationships between concepts, etc), the other is just memorization. Like it or not, there are certain things that we just don't need to know anymore. It is a much more efficient use of learning time learning concepts and how to locate information than it is to memorize random facts.
And I want a flying car and a teleporter, but that doesn't meant I would go out and buy something that didn't work because I like the concept of what they claim they want to do.
Wishful thinking becomes dangerous to the point where you are tempted to sink money in to something that so obviously will not work.
We would all *love* the free energy pseudoscience crazies to actually make good on their claims, that doesn't mean it is a worthwile endeavour that we should waste money on.
It wouldn't surprise me if they just wanted you to tilt a slightly upgraded DS on it's side and use the two screens in a Magic Eye type way... I mean, they did think that the Virtual Boy was a good idea, and from what I understand, most people couldn't stand to look at it for very long at all.
Are you under the impression that you have a dedicated 20Mbits reserved on all of Verizon's edges or have you bought that tired old line that where links are aggregated matters more than how oversubscribed the weakest link is?
You may call them "whiners", but they have a point. Why would I pay for content that I can get for free anywhere else? Why would I pick the NYTimes over any of the free sources of similar information? You are forgetting who the customer is in regards to news. The customer is the advertiser. How much are you paying for your network news exactly (not that I personally watch the news, but still)?
More people who may hop on your network and negatively impact your performance would likely cause you to learn to secure things. We have a much lower average population density, so you are more likely to be able to remain ignorant (or just not care) and leave your AP open. If I have 4 people who can see my AP, they are much less likely to wreak havok on my quality of service than if I have 50. I would like to see stats on open AP% vs population density. Of course, the article may have this info. I didn't rtfa.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you can feed it spam, but you will be overwhelmed by real traffic most likely so that your spam never breaks the first few pages.
They set up these bogus searches, and then sent people home to install the Bing toolbar (which explicitly collects browsing data to feed data to the search engine) and had them repeatedly hit these searches on Google (to submit a bogus association of that term to Bing). They in no way show that Google is targeted for anything. To test that, they would have to craft a similar page that would feed bogus data to bing via the toolbar and demonstate that in an equal situation, the link did not start appearing in Bing.
If millions of people link the word cars with Ford based on their browsing habits and suddenly google starts trying to linkt he word cars with Monsanto or some other unrelated company, it won't matter. However, when you take a unique string of letters, there is no other data available to show that the data is bad, so it was easy to poison the search DB and create an association of a given string with whatever they wanted to. The chose to use their search engine for the web pages accessed to create this link in order to be able to make these specious claims.
If their goal was to reverse engineer the way that the Bing toolbar data is used, they would have tried using other pages to do the same type of poisoning. If it only happened with the google search page, they would have a little bit of "proof". If it happened with any similar page they set up, it would show that the toolbar data is just aggregating traffic data and making connections between terms on a page and where they link to based on the links followed (wow, sounds a lot like how a sane search engine would collect data if the users allowed the click data to be collected) Their goal was FUD, and FUD by anyone is wrong. If I, in 5 minutes, can devise a more accurate way to test it, can you honestly say that the folks at Google didn't consider that this is very likely a totally generallized algorithm?
Which is exactly why when they fed the false data to bing via bing toolbar, it was easy to poison the results for it. There was no traffic data involving that term, and google generated a bunch of traffic for it. Suddenly the search engine sees the association of the nonsense word with the webpage and has no good data to compare it to because it's a unique string. Go figure... You seed the engine with bad data and it returns the bad data... They just used their search engine instead of some generic pages to be able to use this FUD line.
No because you're just incorrect. Google purposefully seeded information in to bing through the toolbar. They could have done the same with other web pages, but chose their search engine to spin it and make people assume exactly what you have.
Hook, line, and sinker.
The hijacking of DNS by webservers is particularly frustrating for those of us running networks for other purposes. I say stick with the www so that I stop getting requests to have internal websites' IP addresses resolve to the domain name of an AD domain, etc. Yes, technically I can make this work by running a web service on all of my domain controllers that redirects to www.[domain]. No, it won't happen.
*packaged
It is pretty obvious that you are just making up "facts".
For one, MS volume licenses aren't full packed product licenses and are only upgrade licenses. OEM or boxed copies have to be purchased with the hardware to be license compliant, but hey, go ahead and make things up because it fits your world view.
Hypercorrections don't reflect upon your intelligence the way I suspect you think they do.
Not just in the world's estimation, but also in its own citizens' estimation.
replace first supposedly with supposed. oops.
But that's not what this discussion is about. The discussion is about the supposedly liberties supposedly ensured by that paper that our government supposedly is based upon. Attitudes like yours are why we have this sorry state of things. You cannot separate the means (invasive searches, circumvention of due process) from the ends (avoiding traffic fatalities and planes falling from the sky). In your head this creates a false equivalence between disliking the erosion of liberties and the support of something that no one in their right mind would support.
I really don't understand how this subset of people has become so prevalent, but it is somewhat alarming.
Was the initial design of the tax too rough or too thick that it needed planed?
The problem with the "VOLUNTARY" argument is that when you use it, you're also implying that all cross-border travel is voluntary as well. Why does the mechanism allow for unreasonable search? You're driving your car? Oh, that's voluntary, so we can search you.
But you have yet to say why these types of knowledge are important at this point.
Not at all, but the poster's point was that certain knowledge is no longer necessary, freeing up our minds for other types.
Which is the more useful skill, knowing facts that a reasonably intelligent person from, say, 20 years ago knows or knowing the concepts and being able to rapidly find the relevant facts? One is a task well suited for the human brain (concepts, relationships between concepts, etc), the other is just memorization. Like it or not, there are certain things that we just don't need to know anymore. It is a much more efficient use of learning time learning concepts and how to locate information than it is to memorize random facts.
Wow, you mean that stories that have at this point existed for much longer have more comments? Shocking!
Of course it is! It provides the results that that grandparent desires (seeing arbitrary number X being the largest for favored browser Y).
Odd. My user number is about half of what yours is, and I didn't make this account until 1997 or 1998... That's 13 years at most, and yours is newer.
And I want a flying car and a teleporter, but that doesn't meant I would go out and buy something that didn't work because I like the concept of what they claim they want to do.
Wishful thinking becomes dangerous to the point where you are tempted to sink money in to something that so obviously will not work.
We would all *love* the free energy pseudoscience crazies to actually make good on their claims, that doesn't mean it is a worthwile endeavour that we should waste money on.
It wouldn't surprise me if they just wanted you to tilt a slightly upgraded DS on it's side and use the two screens in a Magic Eye type way... I mean, they did think that the Virtual Boy was a good idea, and from what I understand, most people couldn't stand to look at it for very long at all.
Dedicated, eh?
Define "dedicated" please.
Are you under the impression that you have a dedicated 20Mbits reserved on all of Verizon's edges or have you bought that tired old line that where links are aggregated matters more than how oversubscribed the weakest link is?
You may call them "whiners", but they have a point. Why would I pay for content that I can get for free anywhere else? Why would I pick the NYTimes over any of the free sources of similar information? You are forgetting who the customer is in regards to news. The customer is the advertiser. How much are you paying for your network news exactly (not that I personally watch the news, but still)?
More people who may hop on your network and negatively impact your performance would likely cause you to learn to secure things. We have a much lower average population density, so you are more likely to be able to remain ignorant (or just not care) and leave your AP open. If I have 4 people who can see my AP, they are much less likely to wreak havok on my quality of service than if I have 50. I would like to see stats on open AP% vs population density. Of course, the article may have this info. I didn't rtfa.
3 days? That's not good service. Good service on a laptop is next day on-site repair.
My unlimited voice plan on AT&T would like to have a word with you.