In a nutshell, that's the problem with any of these wetware additions to algorithms, they introduce a new element that can be gamed. If enough people do that (and the incentive is very large, a whole 'SEO' industry has jumped up around gaming the system) then the end result is negative.
Google is well aware of this and I think it is one of their main reasons for being very cautious about giving this any 'weight' in their search results.
I'm one of those 'arguing against it', but I do have a simple rule, anybody walks into my house starts pushing their religion on me they're fair game, but I warn them first that the coming conversation may not turn out the way they expect it to.
Most back out at that point, some don't.
I believe it's perfectly fair to try to convince me of your religion if I can do my best to shake yours.
I won't go out and push my opinion on other people unless they attempt to push theirs on me.
But kidding aside, I once had a long talk with a Polish priest and it turned out that our worldview was roughly the same but we came to our conclusions through very different paths.
So, my actions and his in a given situation would probably be exactly equal but for completely different reasons. One of the most interesting conversations in my life.
You're dead on about the reasoning re. morals through fear of punishment, but I would put it a little lighter than that, I'd say that most believers that feel gods 'watchful eye' behave a bit better simply knowing they're being watched, regardless of being punished.
Just like my son does a better job of sweeping the workshop when I'm there with him vs when I'm not.
Religion, Superstition, Science and belief systems are not US centric, the Democrats and the Republicans are. No American president could be elected who would proclaim himself/herself to be an atheist.
Also, whether your theories are perfect or not (if they ever will be awarded the status of theory instead of simply being your opinion) is not for you to say.
Ray, with all respect. You're one of the few people on/. who is actually visible and has a reputation to protect. You are currently doing yourself a disservice.
While I understand your frustration with this ruling to some extent I really think that you did not gain points for making Rowlings wealth a part of the issue.
Sure, she had better chances in the system as it works today because of her wealth, but that isn't her doing, that's a systemic bias towards the party with the most cash. In a clear cut case that would make little difference, in a case where the line is blurry the effect may be stronger.
The case has been tried and seems to for now be resolved in the favor of Rowling et-al, if you want to make a difference you should pick up the appeals case, show where the judge got it wrong and prove to all the people here disagreeing with you that you saw it right all along.
To wish for someones child to be killed is one of the most crude things I've ever come across on the net. I suddenly realized what the 'foe' setting is for.
You really are beyond the pale. And if you only forgot to check that 'post anonymously' thingy then thank you for outing yourself. Asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'd be better off coding that as a loop instead of recursing.
it will be a great blow for Google actually, to have to admit that humans can out do computers in something as complex as ranking search results.
After all, that's what Yahoo has been telling them for years now.
To admit they were wrong all along is actually quite an about face.
/me will admit to visiting digg occasionally, and between digg and /. idle I'd have to give digg the better mark. At least *some* of it is interesting.
Good thing /. allows you to filter out by section.
In a nutshell, that's the problem with any of these wetware additions to algorithms, they introduce a new element that can be gamed. If enough people do that (and the incentive is very large, a whole 'SEO' industry has jumped up around gaming the system) then the end result is negative.
Google is well aware of this and I think it is one of their main reasons for being very cautious about giving this any 'weight' in their search results.
it's easy really, it defines a function that forks off two processes (using the | character) which then each call the function again.
the function is called ':', the last instance of the ':' in that line is that sets it off.
I really hope you are just joking, if not my apologies.
try this in bash: :(){ :|:& };:
just as powerful and it doesn't even need perl :)
think of it as two entries by the same team
thank you, that made my day :)
I think it's a Norwegian chicken.
you mean like this :
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/102408.php
?
I'm one of those 'arguing against it', but I do have a simple rule, anybody walks into my house starts pushing their religion on me they're fair game, but I warn them first that the coming conversation may not turn out the way they expect it to.
Most back out at that point, some don't.
I believe it's perfectly fair to try to convince me of your religion if I can do my best to shake yours.
I won't go out and push my opinion on other people unless they attempt to push theirs on me.
this is not a troll.
that's easy, the alien artifact is us.
for some odd reason this post reminds me of a link I once clicked near the top of a /. posting, by an AC.
Congratulations on doing the first version of a troll that is entirely based on the remnant image of a previous troll.
I really hope you did that by accident.
Well, there's ways to change being a virgin ;)
But kidding aside, I once had a long talk with a Polish priest and it turned out that our worldview was roughly the same but we came to our conclusions through very different paths.
So, my actions and his in a given situation would probably be exactly equal but for completely different reasons. One of the most interesting conversations in my life.
You're dead on about the reasoning re. morals through fear of punishment, but I would put it a little lighter than that, I'd say that most believers that feel gods 'watchful eye' behave a bit better simply knowing they're being watched, regardless of being punished.
Just like my son does a better job of sweeping the workshop when I'm there with him vs when I'm not.
the humiliation of failure (and the associated benefits) are negated by the fact that he/she posts anonymously.
Religion, Superstition, Science and belief systems are not US centric, the Democrats and the Republicans are. No American president could be elected who would proclaim himself/herself to be an atheist.
Also, whether your theories are perfect or not (if they ever will be awarded the status of theory instead of simply being your opinion) is not for you to say.
Congratulations.
Really, well meant.
I've never been a believer (thank god ;)), but I've seen enough people struggle with their beliefs to know how hard it must have been for you.
Better to walk with your eyes wide open.
for all the pointy words he did get it wrong though...
Ray, with all respect. You're one of the few people on /. who is actually visible and has a reputation to protect. You are currently doing yourself a disservice.
While I understand your frustration with this ruling to some extent I really think that you did not gain points for making Rowlings wealth a part of the issue.
Sure, she had better chances in the system as it works today because of her wealth, but that isn't her doing, that's a systemic bias towards the party with the most cash. In a clear cut case that would make little difference, in a case where the line is blurry the effect may be stronger.
The case has been tried and seems to for now be resolved in the favor of Rowling et-al, if you want to make a difference you should pick up the appeals case, show where the judge got it wrong and prove to all the people here disagreeing with you that you saw it right all along.
Name calling is really below you.
best regards,
Jacques Mattheij
To wish for someones child to be killed is one of the most crude things I've ever come across on the net. I suddenly realized what the 'foe' setting is for.
You really are beyond the pale. And if you only forgot to check that 'post anonymously' thingy then thank you for outing yourself. Asshole.
let me spell it out for you:
Interesting = the new funny
Funny = deprecated unless you want someone to lose karma
troll = the new interesting
all clear now ?
best post in a long long time. thank you!
so, these angels you are talking to, they're all in white right ?