Also, with a $$ driven corporation, the only way to effect change is to impact their profit margin. Asking for $1,000 wouldn't have been enough money to make Yahoo change any policies. But if she gets even a fraction of the three million, Yahoo will have to start taking removal requests a little more seriously.
A fraction like 1/3000th will be enough for Yahoo to start taking removal requests a little more seriously.
My theory was more along the lines of: "When Google released Desktop Search, the flurry of activity meant that for a while at least, desktop.google.com got more hits then google.com, inflating it's pagerank and putting it above www.google.com in a search for 'Google'."
"very much at all" was probably a bad choice of words, but "people didn't link to google using the keyword 'Google' as often as they linked to Google Desktop Search with a keyword containing the string 'Google' within whatever arbitrary time period the algorithm uses between indexes of those sites" is really rather cumbursome.
Redirect anything with the casino's referrer back to the casino's main site with a 301.
(I believe the hijack is actually using a 302 - page moved temporarily, not a 301 - page moved permanently, if you use a 301, google should update the listing whereas with a 302, google doesn't update the listing but shows different content under the link.)
Two weeks ago if you searched for "google" on www.google.com, the first result that you got was https://desktop.google.com/ which redirects to the google home page. Google desktop seemed to have hijacked the google search homepage!
This is more as a result of Google not giving their own pages an enhanced pagerank then from any sort of accidental hijack. I would guess that people don't link to google.com very much at all - it's a very simple, no-info search page after all. So people link to Google's new desktop search and Google's pageranker thingy sees that as relevant to a search for 'Google'.
It's a symptom of Google doing the Right Thing(tm) when it comes to indexing their own data.
The symbol for copyright should be a burning candle with a cage of barbed wire around the flame, symbolizing that though you could light your candle at mine without diminishing mine's light, I'm still not going to let you copy my fire.
I wonder how many of these 'sabotages' are just a result of ex-coworkers blaming the guy who just left because he makes an easy scapegoat?
A few jobs back, the policy was that once an employee left their homedir was vapourised. The guy who was being promoted to my old position knew I logged in as myself and 'root'. He decided that meant both homedirs needed to go. root's homedir is/.
Needless to say, I got a very angry phone call from my ex-boss accusing me of all sorts of things. Thankfully I had a couple of friends that stuck up for me, and managed to convince him of what had *really* happened.
There are a few cars (such as the older Audi A3s) that have the accelerator and brake fairly close together - close enough so that if you're wearing big shoes and have your foot off-center on the brake, you can hit both the accelerator and brake at the same time. And, thanks to the fact that the brake still gives it's 'progressive' feel, you never realise that the edge of your foot is too far right.
Yeah, I know about the in-state/out-state argument, why not just ignore that and set the median tax at something reasonable.
Why not set up small booths at the major exits to the state - then motorists can drive up, get their odometer read and get a receipt. On the way back, they get another receipt, based on the initial one, allowing them, at tax time, to claim something of a refund?
And make it optional, so anyone who doesn't want the hassle can just drive straight on past - but no receipts = no refund.
Of course, that is not to say that I'm supporting the tax, just that there are fairly simple ways to implement it without the expense and invasiveness of GPS.
Lots of people who have never used bluetooth seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions i.e. that bluetooth is dead because noone ever used it and now Ericsson is no longer making chips.
Ericsson's decision is, in fact, an indication of how far bluetooth has come - the standard is set and cheap, taiwanese alternatives are now as good as the stuff E was making, so it's now cost effective for Ericsson to buy in the chips they need.
Bluetooth is now a fairly mature technology, and is used for an awful lot of things, though mostly in the mobile phone market. Bluetooth keyboards and mice are now viable and steady replacements for corded alternatives and bluetooth is slowly becoming a standard on most new mobile phones. Just because you haven't used it, or seen a use for it, doesn't mean that thousands upon thousands don't use it every day - so many in fact that MS included all sorts of bluetooth stuff in SP2.
hope they get the Microsoft Hardware Lab to certify this thing or else Windows XP is going to bitch about this and it won't go smoothly
That's only if they go through the 'accepted' API for adding new hardware. Just adding it to the registry and then asking the user to reboot when the install finishes is enough to install it 'stealthily'.
...and IBM can sue SCO for copyright infringement...
Not only that, but anyone with any code in the kernel or anything else that makes up SCO Linux may also sue, and if they do it after IBM wins such a suit, they'll already have been found guilty. I don't think I'll be the only one amused when SCO starts hemmoraging punitive damages.
Re:Where is SP2...
on
Latest SP2 News
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You can also get it from Microsoft as a 266 meg download if you're impatient.
What the public wants now is quality, better reception, and higher reliability.
The public already has these things (or at least, the GSM-using public has these things, assuming adequate coverage) - what they don't have is a need to buy a new mobile phone.
As things stand now, everyone that wants a mobile phone has one, and all these new phones with the extra features and gadgets are designed and manufactured for the section of the market that sees the phone as a fashion item.
Simply, if you want a phone that'll just make phone calls, this phone is not for you. If you want a phone that'll wow your family and friends with just how hip and trendy you are, it may be worth a look.
GMail invites aren't sent as normal email are - you enter some detail in a form and it sends the invite - it's so unlike composing normal email that it's perfectly understandable that you wouldn't think that a copy of the invitation would end up in your 'Sent Mail' folder.
Not that silly. (IANAL, but...) It means that legally same sex couples can't be 'married'.
Doesn't mean they can't be in some sort of legal union that has the same rights as marriage though.
Frankly, as long as same-sex couples don't become mandatory - let them do what they will. If we don't stop them 'seeing' each other, why stop them putting that relationship in a contract?
As a self proclaimed Mensa member, you should've given this a little more thought...
Maybe, just maybe, no Australian companies hold e-commerce patents because our patent office throws them out on a regular basis simply because the majority of e-commerce patents are dumb?
Two armed guards is obscurity, because they don't work too well if the attacker knows them.
Alright, so if I, an attacker, decides to break into a room that I know is guarded, then all of a sudden, because I know the room is guarded the guards become ineffective?
Heres a better example, I know the building next door is a customs office, I know that there is an armed guard out the front, I know this guard (friend of mine from university). Nothing is obscure. Of course, I highly doubt he'd let me in if I asked, and definetly wouldn't be party to anything illegal.
So, no obscurity, but the building is pretty secure.
Actually, security through obscurity is the only kind of security there is. Like the security you get from putting 2 armed guards at a doorway? Like the security that comes with a barbed wire fence?
Me: Why do you hate Americans? Them: They invaded our country. Me: But they kicked out the Taliban? Them: Yes. It's much better now. Me: So if they made it better, then why do you hate them? Them: Because they invaded our country.
If you were invaded tomorrow, and the invaders happened to win and take over all of the USA, would you be happy? What if they got rid of the DMCA/Bush/whatever else you don't like about your government? Are you happy now? What if they killed and maimed thousands of your fellow citizens in the process? Happy yet?
People don't hate Americans for liberating them from something they'd very much like to be liberated from. People hate americans because they don't realise that the rest of the world is just that the rest of the world, and not just new states waiting to be conquered.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, with a $$ driven corporation, the only way to effect change is to impact their profit margin. Asking for $1,000 wouldn't have been enough money to make Yahoo change any policies. But if she gets even a fraction of the three million, Yahoo will have to start taking removal requests a little more seriously.
A fraction like 1/3000th will be enough for Yahoo to start taking removal requests a little more seriously.
My theory was more along the lines of: "When Google released Desktop Search, the flurry of activity meant that for a while at least, desktop.google.com got more hits then google.com, inflating it's pagerank and putting it above www.google.com in a search for 'Google'."
"very much at all" was probably a bad choice of words, but "people didn't link to google using the keyword 'Google' as often as they linked to Google Desktop Search with a keyword containing the string 'Google' within whatever arbitrary time period the algorithm uses between indexes of those sites" is really rather cumbursome.
Redirect anything with the casino's referrer back to the casino's main site with a 301.
(I believe the hijack is actually using a 302 - page moved temporarily, not a 301 - page moved permanently, if you use a 301, google should update the listing whereas with a 302, google doesn't update the listing but shows different content under the link.)
Two weeks ago if you searched for "google" on www.google.com, the first result that you got was https://desktop.google.com/ which redirects to the google home page. Google desktop seemed to have hijacked the google search homepage!
This is more as a result of Google not giving their own pages an enhanced pagerank then from any sort of accidental hijack. I would guess that people don't link to google.com very much at all - it's a very simple, no-info search page after all. So people link to Google's new desktop search and Google's pageranker thingy sees that as relevant to a search for 'Google'.
It's a symptom of Google doing the Right Thing(tm) when it comes to indexing their own data.
Larry? Is that you?
The symbol for copyright should be a burning candle with a cage of barbed wire around the flame, symbolizing that though you could light your candle at mine without diminishing mine's light, I'm still not going to let you copy my fire.
Hey! THEY STOLE YOUR IDEA!
I wonder how many of these 'sabotages' are just a result of ex-coworkers blaming the guy who just left because he makes an easy scapegoat?
A few jobs back, the policy was that once an employee left their homedir was vapourised. The guy who was being promoted to my old position knew I logged in as myself and 'root'. He decided that meant both homedirs needed to go. root's homedir is /.
Needless to say, I got a very angry phone call from my ex-boss accusing me of all sorts of things. Thankfully I had a couple of friends that stuck up for me, and managed to convince him of what had *really* happened.
Assuming, of course, that the car isn't already moving. The extra momentum of the car at around 100km/hr (about 60 m/hr) may prove the difference.
Of course, chances are you'd lock up your wheels, which is probably much more likely to be fatal at that sort of speed then any excess acceleration.
There are a few cars (such as the older Audi A3s) that have the accelerator and brake fairly close together - close enough so that if you're wearing big shoes and have your foot off-center on the brake, you can hit both the accelerator and brake at the same time. And, thanks to the fact that the brake still gives it's 'progressive' feel, you never realise that the edge of your foot is too far right.
Yeah, I know about the in-state/out-state argument, why not just ignore that and set the median tax at something reasonable.
Why not set up small booths at the major exits to the state - then motorists can drive up, get their odometer read and get a receipt. On the way back, they get another receipt, based on the initial one, allowing them, at tax time, to claim something of a refund?
And make it optional, so anyone who doesn't want the hassle can just drive straight on past - but no receipts = no refund.
Of course, that is not to say that I'm supporting the tax, just that there are fairly simple ways to implement it without the expense and invasiveness of GPS.
i am not allowed to share, but if you have any idea how much bandwidth steam is doing
Uhhh... 9,402 Mbps? And there are even detailed breakdowns of who's bandwidth they're using, available, linked to that site.
Lots of people who have never used bluetooth seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions i.e. that bluetooth is dead because noone ever used it and now Ericsson is no longer making chips.
Ericsson's decision is, in fact, an indication of how far bluetooth has come - the standard is set and cheap, taiwanese alternatives are now as good as the stuff E was making, so it's now cost effective for Ericsson to buy in the chips they need.
Bluetooth is now a fairly mature technology, and is used for an awful lot of things, though mostly in the mobile phone market. Bluetooth keyboards and mice are now viable and steady replacements for corded alternatives and bluetooth is slowly becoming a standard on most new mobile phones. Just because you haven't used it, or seen a use for it, doesn't mean that thousands upon thousands don't use it every day - so many in fact that MS included all sorts of bluetooth stuff in SP2.
hope they get the Microsoft Hardware Lab to certify this thing or else Windows XP is going to bitch about this and it won't go smoothly
That's only if they go through the 'accepted' API for adding new hardware. Just adding it to the registry and then asking the user to reboot when the install finishes is enough to install it 'stealthily'.
Beware anything that asks for a reboot.
...and IBM can sue SCO for copyright infringement...
Not only that, but anyone with any code in the kernel or anything else that makes up SCO Linux may also sue, and if they do it after IBM wins such a suit, they'll already have been found guilty. I don't think I'll be the only one amused when SCO starts hemmoraging punitive damages.
You can also get it from Microsoft as a 266 meg download if you're impatient.
What the public wants now is quality, better reception, and higher reliability.
The public already has these things (or at least, the GSM-using public has these things, assuming adequate coverage) - what they don't have is a need to buy a new mobile phone.
As things stand now, everyone that wants a mobile phone has one, and all these new phones with the extra features and gadgets are designed and manufactured for the section of the market that sees the phone as a fashion item.
Simply, if you want a phone that'll just make phone calls, this phone is not for you. If you want a phone that'll wow your family and friends with just how hip and trendy you are, it may be worth a look.
I said 'immigrants' because they can't speak fucking English!
Like all those that immigrate from England, Australia or Canada?
GMail invites aren't sent as normal email are - you enter some detail in a form and it sends the invite - it's so unlike composing normal email that it's perfectly understandable that you wouldn't think that a copy of the invitation would end up in your 'Sent Mail' folder.
Microwave everything you buy.
Not that silly. (IANAL, but...) It means that legally same sex couples can't be 'married'.
Doesn't mean they can't be in some sort of legal union that has the same rights as marriage though.
Frankly, as long as same-sex couples don't become mandatory - let them do what they will. If we don't stop them 'seeing' each other, why stop them putting that relationship in a contract?
Nope. You just mentioned the Nazis.
Goodwin - +1
You - 0
As a self proclaimed Mensa member, you should've given this a little more thought...
Maybe, just maybe, no Australian companies hold e-commerce patents because our patent office throws them out on a regular basis simply because the majority of e-commerce patents are dumb?
Two armed guards is obscurity, because they don't work too well if the attacker knows them.
Alright, so if I, an attacker, decides to break into a room that I know is guarded, then all of a sudden, because I know the room is guarded the guards become ineffective?
Heres a better example, I know the building next door is a customs office, I know that there is an armed guard out the front, I know this guard (friend of mine from university). Nothing is obscure. Of course, I highly doubt he'd let me in if I asked, and definetly wouldn't be party to anything illegal.
So, no obscurity, but the building is pretty secure.
Actually, security through obscurity is the only kind of security there is.
Like the security you get from putting 2 armed guards at a doorway? Like the security that comes with a barbed wire fence?
Me: Why do you hate Americans?
Them: They invaded our country.
Me: But they kicked out the Taliban?
Them: Yes. It's much better now.
Me: So if they made it better, then why do you hate them?
Them: Because they invaded our country.
If you were invaded tomorrow, and the invaders happened to win and take over all of the USA, would you be happy? What if they got rid of the DMCA/Bush/whatever else you don't like about your government? Are you happy now? What if they killed and maimed thousands of your fellow citizens in the process? Happy yet?
People don't hate Americans for liberating them from something they'd very much like to be liberated from. People hate americans because they don't realise that the rest of the world is just that the rest of the world, and not just new states waiting to be conquered.