OK, first of all, many worlds interpretation: makes good science fiction, but not that popular among real scientists.
Anyway, infinitely branching universes means infinitely many ways to die, And that's excluding the simple fact that every universe has entropy, which gets us all in the end.
Caring is certainly important. But having money has effects that go way beyond caring. It means kids have to personal resources they need to thrive, including decent food, proper health care, etc. It means they're isolated from some of the nastier realities of poorer kids. It means they have opportunities to learn and grow outside the classroom that poorer kids don't get.
I think these factors are all a lot more important than "we care".
Read my posts a little more carefully. My statement about immaturity was not aimed at their abandoning a particular product. It was about their pattern of not doing the boring stuff they need to do to make their products sustainable.
Why? Because they don't give them a return on their investment.
As I understand it, few Google businesses make much money. All the ones that are profitable are the ones where they've managed to stick in those minimalistic context-sensitive ads they're famous for. Those are extremely profitable, and subsidize the rest of the company.
Anything that resembles traditional services businesses is a disaster. Their spam-filtering business is almost nonfunctional. (I speak from personal experience.) Their cloud application initiative is pretty much stalled. Their code hosting services are pretty poor, and can't possibly be a profit center in any case. And so on,
If a service is only draining cash, it's not worth keeping up from a business standpoint.
That's just a little simplistic. Yes, products disappear quickly when they're generating more losses than a company wants to sustain. But when an unprofitable product has potential to help the company grab market share, provide synergy with other products, and eventually develop into a profit center itself, it makes sense to bear the loss — if the company can afford it. And Google most definitely doesn't have cash flow issues.
iGoogle's nice for its users, but it was isolated from the rest of the Google ecosystem (the widget system isn't really used anywhere else, it doesn't work with Google+, etc.)
OK, that's a really good point, and one that should have occurred to me. Ecosystems are important. And it especially matters that Google+ is what Google wants us to hear about these days. iGoogle dates back to everybody had to have a portal; Google+ represents the current belief in social media. And as you say, the two don't go together.
Some of the emphasis on Google+ is not to my liking. My Google Profile used to have a simple, easy-to-remember URL (google.com/profiles/isaac32767, I think). But profiles with names don't work with Google+, so now my profile is at google.com/profiles/111202763901896476985 . Lame. Fortunately, I managed to grab bit.ly/isaacplus.
and didn't pull ad revenue
Nor does Google+. At least, I don't see any ads when I go there. It's clearly a long-term project. See above re unprofitable products with potential.
I very much doubt that money is an issue. Google is absurdly profitable, gets more profitable year by year, and their ownership is structured so that they don't have to account for the way the spend their money.
But if they maintain a product, somebody has to be responsible for it. If nobody wants to spend the time to keep the product alive then the product dies. And that happens a lot at google, because the only criterion for holding down a job there is being very smart and creative. You get kudos for inventing a clever new API, but your job doesn't depend on your doing the boring work needed to keep the API alive.
The Soviets always pretended to be a communal society (they were "Communists" after all) but it was always something of a joke. Supposedly the state was run by a bunch of committees, and for most of their history they didn't even have a formal Head of State — but there was always one particular guy who was acknowledged as the source of all power. Communism was their ideology, but they were never truly communal.
Armstrong was at the helm? No, that was Christopher Craft.
I'm going to say it one last time, than I'm going to ignore this whole tiresome topic: Armstrong was not a "great man". Trying to cast him as such is hero-worshiping bullshit. Trying to shoehorn people into the "great man" stereotype only serves to obscure their humanity — which is where you usually find their greatest achievements.
I didn't say that people who think exist. I said that people who don't exist don't think.
I've always thought that Rene should have said, "I think I think, therefore I think I am." I mean, if you're not going to postulate that you yourself exist, why should you postulate that you think?
Well, yeah, there are plenty of alternatives. Just now I went to my igoogle page to see if the weather widget was still working. It was — because I use the NOAA widget, not Google's own widget.
But you know, my igoogle page is going away in about a year. I can certainly live without it (I don't really need to a weather report and the Wikipedia Picture of the Day every time I open a browser tab, and now my daily agenda is also on my phone) but it's part of a trend that I'm really getting tired of. They invent some clever new application, then they get bored with it and pull it. They publish an intriguing new API, then they get bored with it and shut it off. The acquire some interesting new company, get bored with it and shut it down. And so on, over and over. Once or twice is a minor nuisance, but they do it constantly.
Even when they stick with an application for the long haul, they take forever to get it out of beta mode, they tend to skimp on the boring little details that make for mature software (I mean you, Postini! And you Android Emulator!), and they never get round to providing proper documentation or tech support.
I've said it before: I love Google for their creativity and their striving to create lots of cool products. But I wish to fuck they'd grow up already.
A minute to file the appeal. Usually a month for the appeal to be acted upon. Sounds like a line to me. And there seems to be no penalty for posting huge numbers of frivolous takedown notices.
OK, not exactly the death knell of Fair Use. But not a molehill either.
Not at all. You could put a Xen-breaking package in a trojan or virus and create virtual zombies for your botnet. But your malicious Rackspace VM would be limited to penetrating VMs that happened to live on the same physical server.
But.... I used to be the documentation lead for the Sun Fire X4600, a server that could have 8 quad-core processors and half a terabyte of RAM. You could run hundreds of VMs on the thing. Discontinued, alas.
I haven't visited the Qubes web site, But the fact that No'Script breaks it is not a big issue, NoScript breaks half the sites on the web. NoScript assumes that all scripting is evil and that you should never allow it unless you absolutely have to — after multiple warning from NoScript as to how dangerous it is.
If you think this is a sane approach to security, you should consider abandoning graphical browsers altogether. I think Lynx is still being maintained.
A JVM is called a virtual machine, but it isn't virtual machine in the same sense as the one provided by Xen. The JVM is a simple bytecode interpreter/compiler. It sort of emulates a machine, but not a complete machine. It runs in user space on top of the native OS and cannot run an OS of its own.
Xen is a hypervisor whose virtual machines emulate a complete system. It doesn't just run the application program, it runs the whole bloody OS. The virtual machine has virtual disks, virtual memory, a virtual processor, even a virtual reset button, Support for this virtualization is built into modern processors, so it occurs at a very low level.
I imagine a sufficiently clever hacker could think of a way to bypass the guest OS and the hypervisor and do wacky things, But it's one hell of a lot harder than breaking out of a JVM sandbox.
That's a bad analogy,. People are not the product of cast iron giraffes. A better analogy is to pretend that you are a cast iron giraffe. So tell me, why are you a cast iron giraffe and not a glass frisbee?
So, you're saying that because Comcast has corrupted Congress, they had to give themselves preferential treatment? That makes even less sense than your previous argument.
You see a story where two characters fall in love and experience the same events in reverse order, and you don't see any similarity with The Time Traveler's Wife?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, first of all, many worlds interpretation: makes good science fiction, but not that popular among real scientists.
Anyway, infinitely branching universes means infinitely many ways to die, And that's excluding the simple fact that every universe has entropy, which gets us all in the end.
Caring is certainly important. But having money has effects that go way beyond caring. It means kids have to personal resources they need to thrive, including decent food, proper health care, etc. It means they're isolated from some of the nastier realities of poorer kids. It means they have opportunities to learn and grow outside the classroom that poorer kids don't get.
I think these factors are all a lot more important than "we care".
Slaughterhouse 5 was a love story? I must have read it wrong.
Anyway, Moffatt said that he "borrowed ideas" from TTTW.
Read my posts a little more carefully. My statement about immaturity was not aimed at their abandoning a particular product. It was about their pattern of not doing the boring stuff they need to do to make their products sustainable.
Why? Because they don't give them a return on their investment.
As I understand it, few Google businesses make much money. All the ones that are profitable are the ones where they've managed to stick in those minimalistic context-sensitive ads they're famous for. Those are extremely profitable, and subsidize the rest of the company.
Anything that resembles traditional services businesses is a disaster. Their spam-filtering business is almost nonfunctional. (I speak from personal experience.) Their cloud application initiative is pretty much stalled. Their code hosting services are pretty poor, and can't possibly be a profit center in any case. And so on,
If a service is only draining cash, it's not worth keeping up from a business standpoint.
That's just a little simplistic. Yes, products disappear quickly when they're generating more losses than a company wants to sustain. But when an unprofitable product has potential to help the company grab market share, provide synergy with other products, and eventually develop into a profit center itself, it makes sense to bear the loss — if the company can afford it. And Google most definitely doesn't have cash flow issues.
iGoogle's nice for its users, but it was isolated from the rest of the Google ecosystem (the widget system isn't really used anywhere else, it doesn't work with Google+, etc.)
OK, that's a really good point, and one that should have occurred to me. Ecosystems are important. And it especially matters that Google+ is what Google wants us to hear about these days. iGoogle dates back to everybody had to have a portal; Google+ represents the current belief in social media. And as you say, the two don't go together.
Some of the emphasis on Google+ is not to my liking. My Google Profile used to have a simple, easy-to-remember URL (google.com/profiles/isaac32767, I think). But profiles with names don't work with Google+, so now my profile is at google.com/profiles/111202763901896476985 . Lame. Fortunately, I managed to grab bit.ly/isaacplus.
and didn't pull ad revenue
Nor does Google+. At least, I don't see any ads when I go there. It's clearly a long-term project. See above re unprofitable products with potential.
Good thing she uses her powers for good!
If its free is it a product?
It's a free product.
I do not know what growing up has to do with it?
Part of growing up is learning that sometimes things you're responsible for take priority over things you want to do.
Huh?
I'm not arguing the thinking about thinking is not proof that you're thinking. I'm arguing that it's silly to be and not take that as proof of being.
I very much doubt that money is an issue. Google is absurdly profitable, gets more profitable year by year, and their ownership is structured so that they don't have to account for the way the spend their money.
But if they maintain a product, somebody has to be responsible for it. If nobody wants to spend the time to keep the product alive then the product dies. And that happens a lot at google, because the only criterion for holding down a job there is being very smart and creative. You get kudos for inventing a clever new API, but your job doesn't depend on your doing the boring work needed to keep the API alive.
The Soviets always pretended to be a communal society (they were "Communists" after all) but it was always something of a joke. Supposedly the state was run by a bunch of committees, and for most of their history they didn't even have a formal Head of State — but there was always one particular guy who was acknowledged as the source of all power. Communism was their ideology, but they were never truly communal.
Armstrong was at the helm? No, that was Christopher Craft.
I'm going to say it one last time, than I'm going to ignore this whole tiresome topic: Armstrong was not a "great man". Trying to cast him as such is hero-worshiping bullshit. Trying to shoehorn people into the "great man" stereotype only serves to obscure their humanity — which is where you usually find their greatest achievements.
I didn't say that people who think exist. I said that people who don't exist don't think.
I've always thought that Rene should have said, "I think I think, therefore I think I am." I mean, if you're not going to postulate that you yourself exist, why should you postulate that you think?
Learn basic coding, dude:
If (insideVM()) {
If(vmHost==exploitableVersion) {
doBreakOutRoutine( );
}
}
Well, yeah, there are plenty of alternatives. Just now I went to my igoogle page to see if the weather widget was still working. It was — because I use the NOAA widget, not Google's own widget.
But you know, my igoogle page is going away in about a year. I can certainly live without it (I don't really need to a weather report and the Wikipedia Picture of the Day every time I open a browser tab, and now my daily agenda is also on my phone) but it's part of a trend that I'm really getting tired of. They invent some clever new application, then they get bored with it and pull it. They publish an intriguing new API, then they get bored with it and shut it off. The acquire some interesting new company, get bored with it and shut it down. And so on, over and over. Once or twice is a minor nuisance, but they do it constantly.
Even when they stick with an application for the long haul, they take forever to get it out of beta mode, they tend to skimp on the boring little details that make for mature software (I mean you, Postini! And you Android Emulator!), and they never get round to providing proper documentation or tech support.
I've said it before: I love Google for their creativity and their striving to create lots of cool products. But I wish to fuck they'd grow up already.
A minute to file the appeal. Usually a month for the appeal to be acted upon. Sounds like a line to me. And there seems to be no penalty for posting huge numbers of frivolous takedown notices.
OK, not exactly the death knell of Fair Use. But not a molehill either.
Not at all. You could put a Xen-breaking package in a trojan or virus and create virtual zombies for your botnet. But your malicious Rackspace VM would be limited to penetrating VMs that happened to live on the same physical server.
But.... I used to be the documentation lead for the Sun Fire X4600, a server that could have 8 quad-core processors and half a terabyte of RAM. You could run hundreds of VMs on the thing. Discontinued, alas.
I haven't visited the Qubes web site, But the fact that No'Script breaks it is not a big issue, NoScript breaks half the sites on the web. NoScript assumes that all scripting is evil and that you should never allow it unless you absolutely have to — after multiple warning from NoScript as to how dangerous it is.
If you think this is a sane approach to security, you should consider abandoning graphical browsers altogether. I think Lynx is still being maintained.
A JVM is called a virtual machine, but it isn't virtual machine in the same sense as the one provided by Xen. The JVM is a simple bytecode interpreter/compiler. It sort of emulates a machine, but not a complete machine. It runs in user space on top of the native OS and cannot run an OS of its own.
Xen is a hypervisor whose virtual machines emulate a complete system. It doesn't just run the application program, it runs the whole bloody OS. The virtual machine has virtual disks, virtual memory, a virtual processor, even a virtual reset button, Support for this virtualization is built into modern processors, so it occurs at a very low level.
I imagine a sufficiently clever hacker could think of a way to bypass the guest OS and the hypervisor and do wacky things, But it's one hell of a lot harder than breaking out of a JVM sandbox.
That's a bad analogy,. People are not the product of cast iron giraffes. A better analogy is to pretend that you are a cast iron giraffe. So tell me, why are you a cast iron giraffe and not a glass frisbee?
So, you're saying that because Comcast has corrupted Congress, they had to give themselves preferential treatment? That makes even less sense than your previous argument.
I'm pretty sure that people who don't exist don't think about much of anything.
But somehow, they never seem to ask the most important question of all: Does anybody give a shit?
You see a story where two characters fall in love and experience the same events in reverse order, and you don't see any similarity with The Time Traveler's Wife?
If the world didn't exist, nobody would be asking why it did.
Sorry, I confused the episode called TDW with the episode featuring TDW.