Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:What's the problem here? (Score 1) 181

Nobody has answered the questions I posed. Does the user see an even slightly different page? Do they get different prices on stuff on the site? Who are these affiliates?

I could understand if amazon.com was being redirected to a rival company, or if (as some ISPs have done) typos and invalid DNS entries got redirected to a page stuffed with advertising.

Excuse me if I don't understand this aspect of Amazon's trading practice - but then you are probably sitting in your mom's basement spending her money on Amazon all day long. Okay now we're even.

Comment What's the problem here? (Score 0) 181

From the article: he goes to amazon.com, it returns the IP for the proxy, and eventually a redirect to www.amazon.com/?affiliate=id

How does that affect the user? Do they see a different page than if they'd gone straight to www.amazon.com? Or is it just that the affiliate gets a cut if the user buys anything from amazon at that point? Who loses out here? Other affiliates who aren't in the program?

Comment Misleading figure caption (Score 1) 189

Some idiot sub-editor wrote a misleading figure caption here. The article (which I've read) says nothing about how data is lost with age. It only says something about how much data is lost for papers of a given age as of now.

In other words it does not mean that in 10 years time, 10 year old papers will have such drastic data loss. The world 20 years ago was a very different place in terms of communication, scientific practice, and data storage than it was 10 years ago or is now.

The Slashdot article repeats the fallacy by saying "scientific data disappears". No it doesn't. Some has disappeared, but the paper cannot say anything about whether it is still disappearing.

Come back in 10 years time for that conclusion.

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...