today sar got me some shoes that i've wanted since the 80's when i first saw kangaROOS.
There's even a secret pocket.
Oct 30, 2007
new shoos
today sar got me some shoes that i've wanted since the 80's when i first saw kangaROOS.
There's even a secret pocket.
Oct 28, 2007
Regarding Referendum # 1 (Utah Residents)
Please read the impartial analysis before you decide based on any more one-sided public messages.
http://le.utah.gov/lrgc/impartial.pdf
See also (pg. 4-7) here:
http://elections.utah.gov/Voter%20Information%20Pamphlet_2007.pdf
Perhaps after you read the impartial analysis, you'll vote as I'm going to vote. I'll let you know next week after the vote if you made the wise decision.
http://le.utah.gov/lrgc/impartial.pdf
See also (pg. 4-7) here:
http://elections.utah.gov/Voter%20Information%20Pamphlet_2007.pdf
Perhaps after you read the impartial analysis, you'll vote as I'm going to vote. I'll let you know next week after the vote if you made the wise decision.
Oct 21, 2007
Scary Success
TIGERS V. TIGERS
winner: the real tigers w/ the real mascot MIKE VI
keeping the home streak alive.
more later and goodnight.
winner: the real tigers w/ the real mascot MIKE VI
keeping the home streak alive.
more later and goodnight.
Oct 15, 2007
Why Scroogle?
(from scroogle.org)
Why donate to Scroogle?
There are two reasons why an ad-free scraper of Google's main search results is important. One reason is personal, and the other is political.
On a personal level, your support for Scroogle says that search engines should not be tracking you and retaining this information indefinitely. Not only does Google scrape much of the web, but they keep records of who searches for what. If information about your searching is accessible by cookie ID or by your IP address, it is subject to subpoena. This is a violation of your privacy. Someday Google's data retention practices will be regulated, because Google is too arrogant to do the right thing voluntarily. In the meantime, you should not be leaving your fingerprints in Google's databases.
There are other proxies that can protect your privacy on the web. Almost all are general-purpose proxies that cloak all of your web activity behind an IP address that is not easily traced to your service provider. One is Anonymizer.com. A possible problem with this one is that the founder, Lance Cottrell, has connections with the FBI and the Voice of America. It also costs money for a reasonable level of service. Another is Tor, which is much more secure. But it is also slow, because Tor is a complicated system that needs networks of volunteers to run server software. Juvenile surfers from video pirates to rogue Wikipedia editors tend to clog free services such as Tor, which slows them down even more.
Since Scroogle does just one thing, it is fairly fast and simple. But because it does only one thing, it is vulnerable to action by Google. They could block our IP address, which would require that we relay requests to other servers that are more difficult for them to locate. They could also centralize their system more in order to better detect and throttle any outside address that does too many searches per minute. Finally, they could make minor changes in their output format on a regular basis, which would break our scraper and require frequent reprogramming. Any of the above might quickly get too complex and expensive for us, and that would be the end of Scroogle.
One action that Google is less likely to take is to serve Scroogle with a cease and desist letter. This introduces the second reason why Scroogle deserves support. As a nonprofit with a history of activism on privacy issues, it would be difficult for Google to sue us on the grounds that their search results and rankings are copyrighted. The main reason for this is that we are noncommercial. None of our sites has ever carried ads, we have zero employees, and our gross annual income is about $10,000. Our lack of commercial intent strengthens our claim that we have the right to scrape Google. It's obvious that we are doing it in the public interest.
Showing Google's results without their ads is another political statement. About 99 percent of Google's total revenue comes from ads, and these are ruining the web. Thousands of "Made for AdSense" domains are spewing garbage. Since these sites need content to trigger Google's ads, they steal it by scraping legitimate sites, or generate their own by purchasing junk from bulk writers. Meanwhile, click fraud is rampant. Zombie botnets are used to click on ads. If you cannot afford to buy a botnet from some shady character, then you can contract with someone in a country where labor is cheap. They will hire people to click on ads all day at below-minimum wage.
It's time to stop pretending that Google's revenue model is anything more than a temporary bubble, and it's time for Google to start developing more socially-responsible sources of income. Showing Google's results without the ads amounts to more public-interest advocacy. It says that the web spam situation is intolerable.
We remain vulnerable to blocking, throttling, or breaking by Google, which unfortunately is legal if they decide to stop us. But the longer Scroogle exists and the more our traffic grows, the stronger our statements become. We cannot survive many more months without at least one more server, even if Google leaves us alone. While we could apply for foundation grants, our experience tells us that foundations are about ten years behind on Internet and other high-tech issues. Any funding proposals we send out would strike them as bizarre and incomprehensible. It's not worth our time to send out proposals to foundations.
That leaves us asking lots of Scroogle users for small contributions. Searchers who prefer Scroogle are making a unique statement about important issues. Nothing else we know of is making the same points as effectively.
There are two reasons why an ad-free scraper of Google's main search results is important. One reason is personal, and the other is political.
On a personal level, your support for Scroogle says that search engines should not be tracking you and retaining this information indefinitely. Not only does Google scrape much of the web, but they keep records of who searches for what. If information about your searching is accessible by cookie ID or by your IP address, it is subject to subpoena. This is a violation of your privacy. Someday Google's data retention practices will be regulated, because Google is too arrogant to do the right thing voluntarily. In the meantime, you should not be leaving your fingerprints in Google's databases.
There are other proxies that can protect your privacy on the web. Almost all are general-purpose proxies that cloak all of your web activity behind an IP address that is not easily traced to your service provider. One is Anonymizer.com. A possible problem with this one is that the founder, Lance Cottrell, has connections with the FBI and the Voice of America. It also costs money for a reasonable level of service. Another is Tor, which is much more secure. But it is also slow, because Tor is a complicated system that needs networks of volunteers to run server software. Juvenile surfers from video pirates to rogue Wikipedia editors tend to clog free services such as Tor, which slows them down even more.
Since Scroogle does just one thing, it is fairly fast and simple. But because it does only one thing, it is vulnerable to action by Google. They could block our IP address, which would require that we relay requests to other servers that are more difficult for them to locate. They could also centralize their system more in order to better detect and throttle any outside address that does too many searches per minute. Finally, they could make minor changes in their output format on a regular basis, which would break our scraper and require frequent reprogramming. Any of the above might quickly get too complex and expensive for us, and that would be the end of Scroogle.
One action that Google is less likely to take is to serve Scroogle with a cease and desist letter. This introduces the second reason why Scroogle deserves support. As a nonprofit with a history of activism on privacy issues, it would be difficult for Google to sue us on the grounds that their search results and rankings are copyrighted. The main reason for this is that we are noncommercial. None of our sites has ever carried ads, we have zero employees, and our gross annual income is about $10,000. Our lack of commercial intent strengthens our claim that we have the right to scrape Google. It's obvious that we are doing it in the public interest.
Showing Google's results without their ads is another political statement. About 99 percent of Google's total revenue comes from ads, and these are ruining the web. Thousands of "Made for AdSense" domains are spewing garbage. Since these sites need content to trigger Google's ads, they steal it by scraping legitimate sites, or generate their own by purchasing junk from bulk writers. Meanwhile, click fraud is rampant. Zombie botnets are used to click on ads. If you cannot afford to buy a botnet from some shady character, then you can contract with someone in a country where labor is cheap. They will hire people to click on ads all day at below-minimum wage.It's time to stop pretending that Google's revenue model is anything more than a temporary bubble, and it's time for Google to start developing more socially-responsible sources of income. Showing Google's results without the ads amounts to more public-interest advocacy. It says that the web spam situation is intolerable.
We remain vulnerable to blocking, throttling, or breaking by Google, which unfortunately is legal if they decide to stop us. But the longer Scroogle exists and the more our traffic grows, the stronger our statements become. We cannot survive many more months without at least one more server, even if Google leaves us alone. While we could apply for foundation grants, our experience tells us that foundations are about ten years behind on Internet and other high-tech issues. Any funding proposals we send out would strike them as bizarre and incomprehensible. It's not worth our time to send out proposals to foundations.
That leaves us asking lots of Scroogle users for small contributions. Searchers who prefer Scroogle are making a unique statement about important issues. Nothing else we know of is making the same points as effectively.
Oct 14, 2007
Worst week in NCAAF so far this year. And worst poll voting so far.
First of all, good job Kentucky at preventing the Tigers from geauxing on to another victory last night (I now hate you in football almost as much as I do in basketball). Yes, I'm disappointed but I have to say that LSU will have some fire going into the second half of the season. This happened for them last year and they tore up the second half of the season. They capped it off by wrecking Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl. So this could be a good thing for them. (if they've got to take a loss this year, thank goodness it wasn't to Urban Meyer's team)
What I am really keyed-up about is today's BCS standings. Anyone out there who honestly believes that Boston College deserves a higher ranking than LSU please express yourself. If that isn't clearly incorrect in your mind, picture the two teams playing each other. I feel like too many poll voters come from the north-east where they honestly believe that a "whatever-and-0" team is better than a 1-loss, 2-loss, or even 3-loss SEC team. A team coming out of the SEC with a couple of losses is like that dude on the Marines commercial that goes through a fantasy obstacle course, becoming refined by being tested, slays a monster and then is shown in full uniform, sword in hand. When bowl season comes, that "monster" is going to be the heralded #1 (someone like Boston College or Ohio) who will get slain mercilessly by the marine - a team from the south like LSU.
Further, does Kentucky deserve the promotion to spot 7? If that's our logic, then where's our head at leaving Colorado out of the top 25? They had an adrenaline filled out-of-the ordinary game on 9/29 in which they beat the OU, sort-of like Kentucky beating LSU yesterday (or Auburn beating Florida). Speaking of the Sooners, why the junk aren't they ahead of Boston College? Oh wait, I forgot, BCS cares more about that 7-0 next to BC's name than the passion and ability of a true football powerhouse like OU.
What I am really keyed-up about is today's BCS standings. Anyone out there who honestly believes that Boston College deserves a higher ranking than LSU please express yourself. If that isn't clearly incorrect in your mind, picture the two teams playing each other. I feel like too many poll voters come from the north-east where they honestly believe that a "whatever-and-0" team is better than a 1-loss, 2-loss, or even 3-loss SEC team. A team coming out of the SEC with a couple of losses is like that dude on the Marines commercial that goes through a fantasy obstacle course, becoming refined by being tested, slays a monster and then is shown in full uniform, sword in hand. When bowl season comes, that "monster" is going to be the heralded #1 (someone like Boston College or Ohio) who will get slain mercilessly by the marine - a team from the south like LSU.
Further, does Kentucky deserve the promotion to spot 7? If that's our logic, then where's our head at leaving Colorado out of the top 25? They had an adrenaline filled out-of-the ordinary game on 9/29 in which they beat the OU, sort-of like Kentucky beating LSU yesterday (or Auburn beating Florida). Speaking of the Sooners, why the junk aren't they ahead of Boston College? Oh wait, I forgot, BCS cares more about that 7-0 next to BC's name than the passion and ability of a true football powerhouse like OU.
Oct 7, 2007
LSU v. Florida
THANKS FOR COMING GATORS...
SEE U NEXT YEAR
http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/gamecenter/recap/NCAAF_20071006_FL@LSU
photos
SEE U NEXT YEAR
http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/gamecenter/recap/NCAAF_20071006_FL@LSU
photos
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)