Related link: http://greg.abstrakt.ch/archives/2004/10/the_evolution_o.html

>Gregor,
>>
>> How does the slogger/google combo work?
>>
>> Any trouble setting it up?

slogger dumps full html (including images etc) of pages you visit to a
directory of your choice where GDS picks it up. interestingly, it shows up in the browser history category (probably based on the .html)

also, in a test a new page was indexed within a minute (or less). GDS
seems to have some file alteration monitor.

setup was a piece of cake, just install slogger and configure it, done.

>> I’m going to point to you, but I wanted to confirm that it worked…
>>
>> Did you figure out Trillian too? I was wondering if copying to a
>> different folder or renaming the files worked to get them indexed.

i didnt. i will try shutting down trillian for a bit and setting the last
last modified date (i assume that is the trick) to make GDS pick it up.

(Jon Udell takes advantage of the Lazy Web to find the same solution.)

Do you know any other hacks to extend GDS support to popular applications?

Related link: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

While working on this weblog entry, I needed to look up the Open Source Definition, so, having a poor memory, I googled it.

If you google define:Open Source, you get this worthy collection of definitions, from a good plain language summary:

When the source code of a computer program is made available free of charge to the general public, it’s known as open source. The basis of open source software is to produce more useful and bug-free products for everyone to use. The concept relies on peer review to find and eliminate bugs in the program code, a process which commercially developed and packaged programs do not utilize. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) reviews then certifies open source programs. They have a stringent list of criteria that include making sure no one collects a royalty on the software and no person, group or field of endeavor can be denied access to the program.

to my favorite:

Software built by programmers who think technology should be distributed without charge.

(I turned into one of those programmers, just last night.)

None of them, however, are the Open Source Definition.

Out of the twenty-five definitions Google serves up, five do reference the Open Source Institute or the Open Source Definition. This HP link itself links in turn to the OSD–I think HP deserves a gold star!

What does define:Open Source Definition bring up? Try it–or just believe me when I tell you it brings up nothing, nada, zip, a verbal 404.

So, how do you get to the Open Source Definition from Google? Why, the obvious way, of course: “Open Source Definition”, which will bring you this link to Dictionary.com, and then, finally, to the Open Source Definition.

Quite a romp! Isn’t it odd that the define: syntax in Google doesn’t find the Open Source Definition?

Do you consider this entry to be about “search” or about “natural language”?

Related link: http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/9851518.htm

If only this roundtable had been held earlier in the year! Better late than never, though.

My impression is that O’Reilly readers are mostly skeptical of e-voting systems. I share that skepticism, but it doesn’t blind me to the very real problems with paper and mechanical balloting, and it doesn’t shake my conviction that a well-designed and well-administered e-voting system is superior to a pure paper system. In particular, the concerns of disabled voters about privacy and security of their votes in paper voting systems are quite real.

At some point in the process, any political system can be corrupted. Conversely, even a relatively insecure system can often produce results with integrity, given sufficient diligence on the part of the people running it. Paper ballots, despite all their problems, have been producing mostly honest results for years, thanks to the exceptional public service provided by election workers, paid and volunteer, and to the presence of poll watchers, partisan and disinterested.

There is the rub: E-voting systems provide lower levels of transparency. It’s hard to watch a process you can’t see.

Election officials simply defending the integrity of their office miss the point: Their integrity has not lessened, but its utility may have. That’s a serious issue–people trust and like election workers, mostly.

Anyway, go read the debate. Let me single out two arguable statements for your attention:

David Dill, item #13:

Virtually our entire society consists of secure handling of paper documents. We’ve been doing it for thousands of years. We have election procedures which, if employed, can give us a lot of confidence in the integrity of paper ballots.

Mischelle Townsend, item #15:

In my 34 years of public service, I’ve never met an election official in California who would be willing to go to jail to allegedly manipulate an election for someone running for office.

Does either side in this debate engage the other? Do opponents of pure e-voting systems acknowledge the security flaws in a pure paper system, and vice versa?

Related link: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1097228025306530.…

Sure, if installing SETI@home on servers you administer is against regulations, your boss has the legal right to discipline or fire the person who installs it.

But does that give your boss the right to mock you in public?

Tom Hayes, Director of something-or-other at the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, thinks so. After firing a 63-year-old programmer under the circumstances described above, he told the Associated Press:

I understand his desire to search for intelligent life in outer space, because obviously he doesn’t find it in the mirror in the morning…I think that people can be comfortable that security has beamed this man out of our building.

If you were Tom Hayes’ boss, would you be pleased by this?

Most places I’ve worked, managers publicly trashing a former employee would be disciplined, possibly fired. (I say “would be fired” because I’ve never met one foolish enough to try it, so I can’t say with certainty.)

Here’s a typical AP Wire story about this incident–up top, I linked instead to the Cleveland Plain Dealer story for two reasons.

First, it’s got some additional detail the AP story doesn’t appear to have, taken from the fired programmer’s SETI@home profile (which, you’ll note, does not match the quotes from the story–presumably, it was changed after his firing).

Second, its author, Tom Wendling, also seems to find the story humorous:

But on Thursday, Charles E. Smith went where no department employee has gone before - he is the first to be fired for using state property to search for alien beings.

Like I said, installing unauthorized software can be a firing offense, either by rigid application of the rule book or by the details of the specific incident. It may be that Charles E. Smith got what he deserved (though I doubt it).

The tone of the story suggests more is at work in this case, though: The very idea of intelligent extraterrestrial life is silly, stupid, shameful–at least to Tom Hayes, possibly to his superiors, and certainly to quite a few others.

Do you know anyone who thinks intelligent extraterrestrial life is implausible? Or that the search for it should be ridiculed?