Since Boyle first wrote about this last September, I was wondering what others had to say about it. Here's a blog entry from Lawrence Lessig. Not too much written there, but it led me to an EFF page and CPTech action page.
Yeah, I didn't notice "history of copyright" in the curriculum list: "ethical behavior in regards to the use of information technology," "the concept, purpose, and significance of a copyright," and "the implications of illegal peer-to-peer network file sharing."
How can they talk about copyright without mentioning the the Statute of Anne, or the U.S. Constitution's Progress Clause:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
"Limited" is concept forgotten by modern copyright law as Lawrence Lessig found out in Eldred v. Ashcroft
I was curious about the following line from their "text elements" analysis.
The \ "attribute" is almost certainly the result of people writing markup like <br\> when intending to do <br>. Of course, neither is particularly useful to browsers when the page is sent as text/html (as all these pages were).
Anyone know what they mean by that? My guess is it's supposed to say that "when indending to do <br/>", and since that is xhtml, it's pointless to use that syntax when the page is being sent as html.
SEO's don't try to convince SE's that a site is more popular (well, there's backlinks, but that's a whole different story).
You're splitting hairs if you're going to say the article is defining "popularity" any differently than what you're calling "relevance."
And what are you talking about, anyway. "that's a whole different story" Backlinks are the whole story. Just about every SEO technique these days has to do with backlinks. Link exchanges, buying permanent links, spamming message boards, spamming blogs, building a network of high PR sites, and hacking sites.
Which reminds me, I can't believe no one else in this thread seems to care about the part in the article about the blackhat SEO Earl Grey hacking Long Island's Stony Brook University. Most blackhat SEO can be considered devious, but that's just illegal. Unless I misinterpreted the article, and Earl Grey was just spamming a messageboard/blog at the school's site.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this similar to what SiteAdvisor is doing?
Since Boyle first wrote about this last September, I was wondering what others had to say about it. Here's a blog entry from Lawrence Lessig. Not too much written there, but it led me to an EFF page and CPTech action page.
Yeah, I didn't notice "history of copyright" in the curriculum list: "ethical behavior in regards to the use of information technology," "the concept, purpose, and significance of a copyright," and "the implications of illegal peer-to-peer network file sharing."
How can they talk about copyright without mentioning the the Statute of Anne, or the U.S. Constitution's Progress Clause:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
"Limited" is concept forgotten by modern copyright law as Lawrence Lessig found out in Eldred v. Ashcroft
Anyone else find it troubling that so many sites out there are vulnerable to such attacks?
A fee? That sounds counter-productive to encouraging prior art submissions.
Paul Graham's take on Web 2.0 is a good read.
It's 4PM now, so I fixed that for you.
SEO's don't try to convince SE's that a site is more popular (well, there's backlinks, but that's a whole different story).
You're splitting hairs if you're going to say the article is defining "popularity" any differently than what you're calling "relevance."
And what are you talking about, anyway. "that's a whole different story" Backlinks are the whole story. Just about every SEO technique these days has to do with backlinks. Link exchanges, buying permanent links, spamming message boards, spamming blogs, building a network of high PR sites, and hacking sites.
Which reminds me, I can't believe no one else in this thread seems to care about the part in the article about the blackhat SEO Earl Grey hacking Long Island's Stony Brook University. Most blackhat SEO can be considered devious, but that's just illegal. Unless I misinterpreted the article, and Earl Grey was just spamming a messageboard/blog at the school's site.