No, it doesn't -- it says it's three thousand billion miles from the sun. So rather than your figure of 5.37e8 seconds, it becomes 5.37e2 seconds, which is close enough. (It's probably not exactly 30000 times as far away...)
Your other error has already been pointed out and corrected.
[U]se it as anti-censorship. Form your own smutpr0n ratings cabal, and go seek out the best-looking sheep on the Internet, and let the world know where to find 'em.
Also, in your proposal, you mention using other people's filters so you would see what the NRA deems good (or whatever). Now, put these two ideas together, along with concerned parents... How about anti-filters, where you decide to block anything which the porn cabal marks as "good"? Seems like a natural step in which to take things, but I do not see it explicitly mentioned in the proposal.
Freedom of Information, my a$$!
on
University Spam
·
· Score: 1
This section does not apply to matters that are [...] personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
That's 5 USC 552(b)(6).
5 USC 551 provides the definition of the "agencies" which the FOI applies to:
''agency'' means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency.
I suppose that a federally funded university would qualify under this provision... anybody know for sure?
Does Sherlock spend all day combing and re-combing and traversing and re-traversing the site it is searching?
No. It just makes a call to eBay's own search engine. Unlike these other sites that eBay is complaining about, Sherlock does not tax their site anymore than any other user does. Less, in fact, since you don't load up the front page. Sherlock users certainly aren't downloading all of eBay once an hour.
Since eBay doesn't have advertising, their complaint must rest in the fact that spiders slow them down -- and that's the last thing they need. They have enough problems as is, eh?
So why would eBay have a problem with Sherlock II -- especially since it doesn't have a problem with the original Sherlock?
eBay doesn't have ads. eBay takes a commission -- charges the seller a small percentage of the final selling price. With 3 million auctions per day (as someone else in this forum pointed out), that's quite enough for them, eh?
Actually, having fewer bidders would drive the final sale price down in some auctions. See above for how this would affect eBay's bottom line.
No quibbles on this one.
But I bet they could make a lot of money licensing or selling their database to other sites...
In short, the reasons that this AC gives are probably not really eBay's motivations. As others have pointed out, web-crawlers constantly going over your site would be a great pain and would slow things down. But if eBay licensed the data -- found some other way to distribute it -- they wouldn't have this problem and would have a new source of moolah.
I'm off to Yahoo Bills right now to send them a nice little email (remember, folks, flaming never works) to let them know that I and many others like me will never use their service as long as the SSN requirement stands.
Some organisations have a legal need to the SSN, like your bank. If Yahoo is just acting as a check-printer, then they do not need the SSN.
I wish that all online privacy concerns were this easy to do something about...
This will get marked as "redundant", I am sure, but...
I care a damn lot about this issue... but I haven't the slightest clue how to fight it. I don't think Bertelsmann will have much inclination to listen to a 22-year-old American programmer, do you? The bastards writing this proposal are beholden to no one. And they are going to get away with it, too, because of that fact. Everybody sees that it's "for the children" and suddenly gets weak in the knees about opposing it. I mean, who wants to make the Internet "more dangerous" for the kids?
So we are stuck, for the time being. It seems to me that getting this proposal blown out of the water would be like convincing Microsoft not to buy some small company that has created the next best thing.
Boy, I am pessimistic today. Please! Somebody prove me wrong! I want to fight this thing... but how?
I fear you are right about the gov't making sure they can get in if need be... but, alas, the last several years have shown that we don't have much effect on what the gov't does in this area, so at this point, we may as well sit back and wait for reports to start trickling in about what the 'technical reviews' actual do require of a product.
Slashdot Mirror
AC wrote "So god damn fragging what? You got a problem with competition?"
When "competition" entails using FUD to get market acceptance of a technologically inferior standard, then, yes, I do have a problem with it.
No, it doesn't -- it says it's three thousand billion miles from the sun. So rather than your figure of 5.37e8 seconds, it becomes 5.37e2 seconds, which is close enough. (It's probably not exactly 30000 times as far away...)
Your other error has already been pointed out and corrected.
Just a passing thought... You say:
Also, in your proposal, you mention using other people's filters so you would see what the NRA deems good (or whatever). Now, put these two ideas together, along with concerned parents... How about anti-filters, where you decide to block anything which the porn cabal marks as "good"? Seems like a natural step in which to take things, but I do not see it explicitly mentioned in the proposal.
The Freedom of Information Act expressly states:
That's 5 USC 552(b)(6).
5 USC 551 provides the definition of the "agencies" which the FOI applies to:
I suppose that a federally funded university would qualify under this provision... anybody know for sure?
Does Sherlock spend all day combing and re-combing and traversing and re-traversing the site it is searching?
No. It just makes a call to eBay's own search engine. Unlike these other sites that eBay is complaining about, Sherlock does not tax their site anymore than any other user does. Less, in fact, since you don't load up the front page. Sherlock users certainly aren't downloading all of eBay once an hour.
Since eBay doesn't have advertising, their complaint must rest in the fact that spiders slow them down -- and that's the last thing they need. They have enough problems as is, eh?
So why would eBay have a problem with Sherlock II -- especially since it doesn't have a problem with the original Sherlock?
In short, the reasons that this AC gives are probably not really eBay's motivations. As others have pointed out, web-crawlers constantly going over your site would be a great pain and would slow things down. But if eBay licensed the data -- found some other way to distribute it -- they wouldn't have this problem and would have a new source of moolah.
So why aren't they doing this?
I'm off to Yahoo Bills right now to send them a nice little email (remember, folks, flaming never works) to let them know that I and many others like me will never use their service as long as the SSN requirement stands.
Some organisations have a legal need to the SSN, like your bank. If Yahoo is just acting as a check-printer, then they do not need the SSN.
I wish that all online privacy concerns were this easy to do something about...
This will get marked as "redundant", I am sure, but...
I care a damn lot about this issue... but I haven't the slightest clue how to fight it. I don't think Bertelsmann will have much inclination to listen to a 22-year-old American programmer, do you? The bastards writing this proposal are beholden to no one. And they are going to get away with it, too, because of that fact. Everybody sees that it's "for the children" and suddenly gets weak in the knees about opposing it. I mean, who wants to make the Internet "more dangerous" for the kids?
So we are stuck, for the time being. It seems to me that getting this proposal blown out of the water would be like convincing Microsoft not to buy some small company that has created the next best thing.
Boy, I am pessimistic today. Please! Somebody prove me wrong! I want to fight this thing... but how?
Close, but not quite.
The patent on the RSA algorithm runs out precisely one year from today -- Sept 17, 2000.
366 days and counting...
I fear you are right about the gov't making sure they can get in if need be... but, alas, the last several years have shown that we don't have much effect on what the gov't does in this area, so at this point, we may as well sit back and wait for reports to start trickling in about what the 'technical reviews' actual do require of a product.