I can understand if small business students get worked up because their credits (wow, I feel like I'm in a video game here) supposedly fail them. But if they then extra push back but aren't even capable of researching properly themselves - because then they would have noticed that readers of Thomas' weblog can definitely find their way back to the original article, even if it's somewhat inconspicuous given the IMO improvable layout - then it just gets silly. But if they then go ahead and steal graphic symbols from blogger.com, instead of painting their own, then it becomes additionally embarrassing too

Ok, welcome to the summer break of summer breaks
But it does raise an interesting topic: types of weblogs and their function on the net. For me there are three primary weblog types - certainly there are many subtypes, but these three strike me spontaneously when browsing through the net:
- Link hubs: these consist of 90% links and third-party quotes, only a small portion is original content. This mostly consists of explaining why I want to see a link, not what it says - because that's already at the original location. SWR and Randgaenge are very link-hub-heavy.
- Content blogs: Writers who produce more original content than foreign links. Often strongly article-formatted - meaning longer texts. The eDingse probably fall into that category, even if their content is deathly boring
- Diaries: well, I don't need to say anything about those, nobody likes them anyway
What's the point of all this now: quite simple. Here two formats collide: more link-hub-oriented ones (SWR and Randgaenge) meet more content-oriented ones (eDingse). Result: the link hubs do what they do: they see interesting content and link to it. They usually only link to the place where they read it - precisely where the interesting stuff was that they're referring to. Links from link hubs are simply to be understood as hey, take a look, there's really cool content there. Not editorial work or content work in that sense (I'm not denying either to SWR or Randgaenge - I'm only referring to the primary character of the two blogs at the moment! Both can certainly write!) but rather directory service and attention filter.
Is it sensible for a content producer to then get upset that Randgaenge linked to SWR and listed it as the source, because Thomas certainly read the content at SWR? No. That's actually highly nonsensical.
The reason: the link hubs are precisely the distributors through which content gets to others. Not everyone reads eDingse or other content - usually you read a few specialized blogs and a set of link hubs. The latter nicely filter for you where you want to read further. Anyone who reads link hubs knows that they have the beginnings of link chains there that eventually lead to the content. That's completely normal. Nobody would believe based on the quote at Thomas' blog that the text was written by Jörg, just because SWR is listed as the source. If a content blog severs ties with link hubs by threatening them with legal action and wielding the copyright club over a couple of sentences of quotation, then ultimately they make their content less accessible - because link hubs will generally simply ignore and exclude the content afterwards.
As a content writer to believe that the whole world reads your blog directly and that you thus reach your entire audience shows little understanding of how things work on the internet. Link hubs are quite important for this, as they perform a purely subjective pre-filtering that readers explicitly choose themselves - because the one doing the pre-filtering covers part of their own information needs.
It's equally counterproductive for link hubs to mess with content producers - however, the link hubs have the longer lever here, as content producers generally create and publish content based on their own interests (internal drive, value chain or similar motivations). And link hubs can link to what's public.
Sure, a content producer can now shut down their RSS feed. But that doesn't hurt the link hub - they just read something else, link to something else, or occasionally browse manually (if they think something interesting is happening there).
What gets hurt regularly are readers who suddenly no longer have access. And what gets hurt are currently still non-readers who possibly learn nothing about the content because it's not linked.
And what's the function of public diaries? No idea, I'm still puzzling over that
Here's the original article.
... and now we're installing diligently
Welcome to the wonderful world of Windows bugs. Lately, there's been a universal exploit for XP and 2000 for the RPC bug that works independently of Service Pack level and similar factors. And this opens the door wide for script kiddies in Windows - if you're running your Windows system without a hotfix, you'll soon become an involuntary employee of some script kiddies ...
At INSTANT NIRVANA you can find the original article.