robots.txt can disallow crawling, it does not
disallow indexing. (I think that only Meta-noindex
can do that) Google can "partially" index pages
based on links even if it has never seen the
pages. This is what you get when searching
for 'medwebplus' on google.
This doesn't mean that Google has sold out,
just that their ranking is somewhat imperfect.
When you type in random phrases you often get
randomish results. It used to be the case that
'more evil than satan himself' returned microsoft
as the #1 result; I don't think that MS paid for
that. (or disney, who came up second or third)
By being the best player Microsoft is helping to destroy non-Free software. (not intentionally, I'm sure) Without the strength of MS's IE do you think that we would have Mozilla?? NO! It would be still be some crappy closed source netscape application.
The sort of duopoly that the government would like to see would leave us with two closed, mediocre options. Freedom will give us something better.
Maybe the attacks are coming from thousands (or millions) of web browsers running Active-X controls. Anyone running windows with Active-X turned on may unknowningly be part of this attack. All they had to do was visit the wrong website.
Software is not the same as other engineering. All of you people talking about spending some huge amount of time on design before writing any code are completely wrong. This idea that we can simply design the whole thing up front has lead to a lot of late/bad software. People simply aren't smart enough, we can't see all of the problems in advance. Furthermore, things will change, it isn't marketing's fault, it is reality.
To learn about effective software design practice check out extreme programming.
This can also be seen in the free software world. The failed projects started out with grand plans and a lot of talk. The successful ones started out with a little bit of useful, working code then built on it; rewriting and refactoring along the way. The Linux kernel, for instance, has been rewritten many times (supposedly).
The scientific method cannot establish the Big Bang, because it cannot be replicated in the lab. The scientific method cannot establish that God does not exist, either -- yet that does not stop the evolutionists from confidently asserting it. Go think.
I agree. Anyone who claims that the scientific method can be used to prove that God does not exist is probably very wrong. However, I do not think that I have ever seen that assertion made. My point was that believing in F=MA is very different from believing in Noah's arc.
I'm a Christian who believes in evolution. What does that make me? --- A troll, a syncretist, and/or just plain wrong. The two are absolutely incompatible. Period.
I suppose that means the pope (who has said that evolution does not conflict with faith) is a troll.
I bring this up mainly in the hopes of getting some entertaining response, much like the KKK guy on Jerry Springer who dismissed the pope as a jew.
That site had nothing to do with creation or God. It had to do with people saying that they had supernatural abilities, UFOs, and such stuff as that. The topic here is that creation can be proven through science.
That site ( randi.org) is "on topic" (or as on topic as any of this) because he applies real science (as in "the scientific method", not guys in white lab coats) to psychics other various pseudo-science. Most people have no idea what science IS. Go learn.
Ok, let me enlighten you. Force=mass*acceleration right? That has been taught in physics classes as truth. Why? Because it has been proven? No, it has not been proven. However, they can not disprove it and it is right in every case they have tried therefore they accept it as truth.
F=MA can be TESTED repeatedly and used to accurately predict the future! Can this also be said of Noah's arc or people living on Jupiter? NO! This is a critical difference of faith, F=MA is more of an expectation that the universe will continue to operate as we have observed it millions of times before. Believing in Noah's arc or people living on Jupiter requires FAITH in the accuracy of some book or somebody's imagination. If I doubt the physics book I can quickly set up a little experiment here to verify that F=MA appears correct, can you do the same for Noah's arc?
By the way, I think that F=MA may have been PROVEN slightly incorrect. (I could be wrong, I don't remember all of the ramifications of relativity). Much of Newtonian physics has been shown to be just an approximation of reality, although a very good one for people, cars, and other objects that are not traveling anywhere near the speed of light.
You should check out the writing of James Randi at http://randi.org to help sort out the difference between science and, well, not-science.
Only the Win 32 API, which has a patent to expire long after Microsoft comes out with its next API version.
I'm not aware of any patents on the Win32 API, in fact there are several clones such as Wine. One of the problems with the Microsoft APIs is that they are difficult to understand and use and nearly impossible to clone. Microsoft has a hard enough time with this, and they have the code, experts, and money. I read that currently Win2K is having a hard time running a lot of existing win32 software.
Many of you seem to be missing that this is only a small subset of machines, namely those with host names www, ftp, and news. This will excluded most of the dial up users etc and result in a much smaller number of hosts.
From their web site http://leb.net/hzo/ "All host names beginning with 'ftp.', 'news.' and 'www.' (case insensitive) were queried."
Suddenly this crap is "realistic"? Soon I expect to see "Linux has no support" touted here as "realistic". Opensource/free software is fundamentally better for "monopoly" software such as OS's. It will take a few years but eventually Linux will replace Windows and MS can't stop it.
Please don't ask the government to start defining/regulating OSs or anything else, I don't want to have to request permission from the Ministry of Software before writing my code.
My only complaint is the part about "you could have copywrited it and made a fortune." It shows that they still don't understand opensource / free software. If Linus had gone that route Linux would never have happened. The freedom is the cause and the advantage. Too bad Linus didn't answer that a little different. Linus, by the way, is cool. I've seen him speak a few times and he seems like an excelent opensource advocate. Instead of getting religious about it he just explains why OSS/FS is better (practially, not morally).
Slashdot Mirror
robots.txt can disallow crawling, it does not disallow indexing. (I think that only Meta-noindex can do that) Google can "partially" index pages based on links even if it has never seen the pages. This is what you get when searching for 'medwebplus' on google.
This doesn't mean that Google has sold out,
just that their ranking is somewhat imperfect.
When you type in random phrases you often get
randomish results. It used to be the case that
'more evil than satan himself' returned microsoft
as the #1 result; I don't think that MS paid for
that. (or disney, who came up second or third)
Google also has the largest database so it seems unlikely that altavista will ever find more results (unless it's spam or duplicates)
Read the original Google paper. It includes some description of Google's architecture.
The sort of duopoly that the government would like to see would leave us with two closed, mediocre options. Freedom will give us something better.
Maybe the attacks are coming from thousands
(or millions) of web browsers running Active-X
controls. Anyone running windows with Active-X
turned on may unknowningly be part of this
attack. All they had to do was visit the wrong
website.
To learn about effective software design practice check out extreme programming.
This can also be seen in the free software world. The failed projects started out with grand plans and a lot of talk. The successful ones started out with a little bit of useful, working code then built on it; rewriting and refactoring along the way. The Linux kernel, for instance, has been rewritten many times (supposedly).
The scientific method cannot establish the Big Bang, because it cannot be replicated in the lab. The scientific method cannot establish that God does not exist, either -- yet that does not stop the evolutionists from confidently asserting it. Go think.
I agree. Anyone who claims that the scientific method can be used to prove that God does not exist is probably very wrong. However, I do not think that I have ever seen that assertion made. My point was that believing in F=MA is very different from believing in Noah's arc.
I'm a Christian who believes in evolution. What does that make me?
---
A troll, a syncretist, and/or just plain wrong. The two are absolutely incompatible. Period.
I suppose that means the pope (who has said that evolution does not conflict with faith) is a troll.
I bring this up mainly in the hopes of getting some entertaining response, much like the KKK guy on Jerry Springer who dismissed the pope as a jew.
That site had nothing to do with creation or God. It had to do with people saying that they had supernatural abilities, UFOs, and such stuff as that. The topic here is that creation can be proven through science.
That site ( randi.org) is "on topic" (or as on topic as any of this) because he applies real science (as in "the scientific method", not guys in white lab coats) to psychics other various pseudo-science. Most people have no idea what science IS. Go learn.
Ok, let me enlighten you. Force=mass*acceleration right? That has been taught in physics classes as truth. Why? Because it has been proven? No, it has not been proven. However, they can not disprove it and it is right in every case they have tried therefore they accept it as truth.
F=MA can be TESTED repeatedly and used to accurately predict the future! Can this also be said of Noah's arc or people living on Jupiter? NO! This is a critical difference of faith, F=MA is more of an expectation that the universe will continue to operate as we have observed it millions of times before. Believing in Noah's arc or people living on Jupiter requires FAITH in the accuracy of some book or somebody's imagination. If I doubt the physics book I can quickly set up a little experiment here to verify that F=MA appears correct, can you do the same for Noah's arc?
By the way, I think that F=MA may have been PROVEN slightly incorrect. (I could be wrong, I don't remember all of the ramifications of relativity). Much of Newtonian physics has been shown to be just an approximation of reality, although a very good one for people, cars, and other objects that are not traveling anywhere near the speed of light.
You should check out the writing of James Randi at http://randi.org to help sort out the difference between science and, well, not-science.
Only the Win 32 API, which has a patent to expire long after Microsoft comes out with its next API version.
I'm not aware of any patents on the Win32 API, in fact there are several clones such as Wine. One of the problems with the Microsoft APIs is that they are difficult to understand and use and nearly impossible to clone. Microsoft has a hard enough time with this, and they have the code, experts, and money. I read that currently Win2K is having a hard time running a lot of existing win32 software.
Many of you seem to be missing that
this is only a small subset of machines,
namely those with host names www, ftp,
and news. This will excluded most of
the dial up users etc and result in
a much smaller number of hosts.
From their web site http://leb.net/hzo/
"All host names beginning with 'ftp.',
'news.' and 'www.' (case insensitive) were queried."
Please don't ask the government to start defining/regulating OSs or anything else, I don't want to have to request permission from the Ministry of Software before writing my code.
My only complaint is the part about "you could have copywrited it and made a fortune." It shows that they still don't understand opensource / free software. If Linus had gone that route Linux would never have happened. The freedom is the cause and the advantage. Too bad Linus didn't answer that a little different. Linus, by the way, is cool. I've seen him speak a few times and he seems like an excelent opensource advocate. Instead of getting religious about it he just explains why OSS/FS is better (practially, not morally).