I find it quite absurd that someone who mismanaged a company, sold off that company and its employees, and even awarded themselves an extra large bonus for it, and who now faces court proceedings for various offenses, should have good prospects in another lawsuit for damages due to allegedly unjustified suspicion.
At tagesschau online you can find the original article.
Now that's efficient journalism
At Der Rollberg you can find the original article.
Not just the scratch-off ticket
At tagesschau im Internet you can find the original article.
What always amazes me about all this virtual machine talk: why don't these people look at where virtual machines have actually been used for a long time before implementing such things? I mean, Smalltalk has had a virtual machine since its existence and since the mid-80s a highly efficient garbage collector as well as a whole range of advanced features. Same with Common Lisp implementations - many use internally portable code based on virtual machines. There's also corresponding experience with closures and continuations. It's not as if these topics were so terribly new - on the contrary, they're pretty old hat.
But instead of looking at where there are not only working implementations, but also the full source code for study, people prefer to tinker with their own stuff and at best refer to the JVM or the .NET CLR - two of the most pathetic implementations of virtual machines that exist (among other things because their designers make exactly the same mistake and think they know better and don't need to look at the code and ideas of old hackers).
What's really ridiculous is this continuations and closure debate. Both are essential features of Scheme and addressed in all Scheme implementations, because nothing would work without them. And many of them have highly efficient implementations for virtual machines or real CPUs.
People, please look at what others have already done decades ago before you think you have the great new idea. Or don't be too surprised if you're not taken very seriously by those who know these old systems ...
At Squawks of the Parrot there's the original article.
What? There's no money for the social system, but there is for stupid weapons games?
The original article can be found at tagesschau im Internet - here.
Approval and agreement. Especially when these cliques are already enjoying book and record burnings. At MEHRZWECKBEUTEL you can find the original article.
Hmm. Well, if I look at the text and effects of the story and think about it a bit, I would draw the following conclusion: a Japanese porn site is using weblogs.com and the weblogs announced there for porn spam by mirroring these sites (apparently only part of the pages), removing all references to the original site and replacing them with references to their own content. As a result, Google not only finds the content of these weblogs on the blog itself, but also on the pornified mirror.
As a result, this porn site parasitically uses the content to climb higher in the rankings itself. But since they exchange all the links, the backlinks are lost - and of course nobody links to the porn mirror (okay, nobody except Ben Hammersley). This way they can't exploit the actual ranking factor of blogs - the high linking - for their own purposes.
So all in all it's actually a pretty stupid action, especially since the site primarily targets the Asian region - and who enters German search terms there, for example?
It's of course possible that when using Japanese search engines or restricting search results to the Japanese domain space, these sites climb to the top because of the content, since they apparently use the changes from weblogs.com to also change the mirror pages - and thus pretend to be frequently changing pages that rank higher in search engine scanning and thus possibly also in the ranking.
But does it really work? In any case, I haven't seen any porn spam mirrors in my search results. However, what this shows is that we have to reckon with spam appearing in completely different areas. Comment spam already exists in the blogosphere, but website spam is not yet so common. But it will come.
To what extent one can take legal action against this content theft is unfortunately questionable, since copyright doesn't apply everywhere.
The original article is at Ben Hammersley.com, here.