They used open-source code, namely JavaScript, which is open and free and created a process by leveraging existing technology
more importantly they created a process that others had also already created. every corporate intranet i've built since 1999 has had similar functionality.
a sql query based on what the algorithm thinks is relevant to the user?
not "user"... it's "user of a social network". TOTALLY different. there is obvious prior art showing this for general "users"... facebook's new INVENTION applies the concept in a proprietary process to "users of social network". where is the shame for the investors that are probably stuck $100k on fees and salary to get this filed?
I've never found a way to tell a recommendation algorithm that Pink Floyd is OK but I want something less popular...
don't buy anything. the first site that correctly recommends something you haven't heard of, but also really like, but it. that is how the invisible hand works.
they are both equally bad... it's just that the people with money chasing the solution are no longer sold on the standard approach... it's quantum now... if we all go for the blonde no one gets the blonde, so recommend hair dye.
also, i never said it wasn't ever reasonable to demonize him... i just asked the reader to think about it. the fact that you assumed that from my question says a lot about your motives. some people hold bill gates reputation in high regard.
perhaps you don't understand the difference between the freedom of speech applied to natural conversation, and the burden of responsibility placed on journalists.
you have agreed with all of my points. you could not be more wrong.
why would i spend time congratulating myself on being so smart when i have so much work left to do convincing you that you are perhaps nothing but?
THE HEADLINE WAS NON-OPTIMAL. THAT WAS MY POINT. YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU INITIALLY MISUNDERSTOOD MY POINT, BUT CONTINUE TO ARGUE. MY POINT WAS THE HEADLINE MIGHT BE MISUNDERSTOOD BY OTHERS. AVOIDING MISUNDERSTANDINGS IS IMPORTANT.
i have the HD tivo, and i move every 4 months... getting the cablecard from the cable company and getting it installed is always a GIANT headache, usually having to deal with comcast customer service that pretends they have never heard of a tivo or cablecard...BUT, after it's set up and working.... nothing beats it. dual HD tuners, that can record while you are downloading web content simultaneously, with high quality netflix streaming, a giant hard drive with eSATA to seamlessly attach any 3rd party hard drive for additional storage... it's a dream and 100% wife approved, but if she had to figure it all out and convince comcast that she really did know what she was talking about, she would never get it set up. it is most certainly a cable company conspiracy. i enjoy my chats with all the cable installer guys as i ask them to justify the cablecard which is just a glorified hardware password... eventually i can get them all to admit that it's just about renting you another piece of hardware. i'm always charged a monthly fee to rent my multistream cablecard... without the cablecard the digital service has no value, and subscribers can not use their own cablecards, so i don't understand how it's legal to sell the service and require the hardware rental as a separate fee... also, the channel lineups available are a giant mess requiring much effort to remove duplicates... can't really fault tivo for that... more conspiracy. i'm just wondering if the set top boxes distributed by comcast also contain 5 copies of most network channels.
i agree that popular opinion should not justify anything... but if that hat says "austrailia" 100x more than anything else, is it irresponsible not to use it?
i get more offended when people ask questions in the negative sense... like "you didn't wear the dundee hat?"... popular opinion says that the response "no" means "i did not wear the hat" while logic says that the response "yes" would also mean "i did not wear the hat".
people adapt to other people, and some people are dumb.
they still use a demonized picture of bill gates for microsoft stories...
which is worse, personalized corporate attacks long after the person has left the corporation, or generalized cultural observations? or isn't there a difference?
consider this headline: "your farts might be stinkier than you think".
can the reader infer anything new about their own farts, or the tendency of stinkiness levels in the farts of others?
you are claiming "yes, they can"... you are claiming that everyone's farts are now explicitly stinkier on average than they believe them to be just because an article exists with a vague headline.
you obviously have either little regard or experience regarding journalistic integrity. perhaps i have too much of both.
The conditional probability ("conditional" means based on knowledge) of Enceladus' potential habitability for life has gone up base on our increased knowledge. So in a factual context, "nothing has changed" is still completely wrong.
that would be true if an increase in knowledge was stated. however, it wasn't; so in a truly factual context, your claim that my claim is "completely wrong" is totally wrong.
true... modern cars run on electric batteries... it doesn't mean diesel engines aren't the best choice for moving a semi trailer of goods cross country.
my main problem with the threaded approach is the overhead to allow real-time applications such as audio recording to run in a pool of other processes using the same core. a lot of predictability is lost when the pipeline flow is variable... the overhead of regaining a similar level of predictability wipes out most of the perceived gains, and lowers maximum achievable quality.
it's all application specific obviously, but i believe multiple MIPS cores can always do any job in any environment whereas a single threaded MIPS core is sometimes not capable of doing a specific job...
in the context of our cold and mostly lifeless solar system implicitly suggests a degree of habitability higher than the default
so the default degree of habitability is based on our current understanding that you are claiming is and has changed. in the context of a universe with a changing default degree of habitability implicitly makes all claims relative to it non-deterministic.
However even the simplest of person could see that saying "could be habitable" in the context of our cold and mostly lifeless solar system implicitly suggests a degree of habitability higher than the default which is an extremely remote definition of "could". That's why it's a news item.
the most complex of person might immediately understand that "could be habitable" is equal to "could be unhabitable"... but you seem to believe that news items are all magically justified based on nothing but their existence. that's why you are incorrect.
if you read the headline literally and with a deliberate lack of context, provided by either the summary or personal knowledge, it could mean nothing has changed.
i think you don't understand that my problem is with the headline only... not the conclusions formed from the data the headline references.
which of these headlines do you feel is "most correct" using your understanding of "variations in degree":
saturn moon hosts life maybe one day
saturn moon more hospitable to life than once thought
new probe data shows saturn moon contains some necessities for known forms of life
my problem is that the LEAST correct headline was chosen.
i said "nothing has changed". you said i am wrong. you claim "could" has "variations in degree". i am saying that unless those variations are stated and to what degree they have changed, that the "determined state" of knowledge after reading the headline is identical to that of before reading the headline.
i hope you one day understand that "nothing has changed" relative to the possibility implied by "could" out of any deterministic context is completely correct.
the correct headline as written by an informed editor, such as yourself, would thus read, "increase in our knowledge regarding saturn moon".
only someone who is either uniformed, irresponsible, or lying would write the headline in it's current form.
Slashdot Mirror
time is the bi-product of change
They used open-source code, namely JavaScript, which is open and free and created a process by leveraging existing technology
more importantly they created a process that others had also already created. every corporate intranet i've built since 1999 has had similar functionality.
a sql query based on what the algorithm thinks is relevant to the user?
not "user"... it's "user of a social network". TOTALLY different. there is obvious prior art showing this for general "users"... facebook's new INVENTION applies the concept in a proprietary process to "users of social network". where is the shame for the investors that are probably stuck $100k on fees and salary to get this filed?
pffffft. BUY it.
I've never found a way to tell a recommendation algorithm that Pink Floyd is OK but I want something less popular...
don't buy anything. the first site that correctly recommends something you haven't heard of, but also really like, but it. that is how the invisible hand works.
they are both equally bad... it's just that the people with money chasing the solution are no longer sold on the standard approach... it's quantum now... if we all go for the blonde no one gets the blonde, so recommend hair dye.
BRUN response
also, i never said it wasn't ever reasonable to demonize him... i just asked the reader to think about it. the fact that you assumed that from my question says a lot about your motives. some people hold bill gates reputation in high regard.
perhaps the only difference is a few million dead jews.
THE HEADLINE WAS NON-OPTIMAL. THAT WAS MY POINT. YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU INITIALLY MISUNDERSTOOD MY POINT, BUT CONTINUE TO ARGUE. MY POINT WAS THE HEADLINE MIGHT BE MISUNDERSTOOD BY OTHERS. AVOIDING MISUNDERSTANDINGS IS IMPORTANT.
you are completely and totally wrong.
i have the HD tivo, and i move every 4 months... getting the cablecard from the cable company and getting it installed is always a GIANT headache, usually having to deal with comcast customer service that pretends they have never heard of a tivo or cablecard...BUT, after it's set up and working.... nothing beats it. dual HD tuners, that can record while you are downloading web content simultaneously, with high quality netflix streaming, a giant hard drive with eSATA to seamlessly attach any 3rd party hard drive for additional storage... it's a dream and 100% wife approved, but if she had to figure it all out and convince comcast that she really did know what she was talking about, she would never get it set up. it is most certainly a cable company conspiracy. i enjoy my chats with all the cable installer guys as i ask them to justify the cablecard which is just a glorified hardware password... eventually i can get them all to admit that it's just about renting you another piece of hardware. i'm always charged a monthly fee to rent my multistream cablecard... without the cablecard the digital service has no value, and subscribers can not use their own cablecards, so i don't understand how it's legal to sell the service and require the hardware rental as a separate fee... also, the channel lineups available are a giant mess requiring much effort to remove duplicates... can't really fault tivo for that... more conspiracy. i'm just wondering if the set top boxes distributed by comcast also contain 5 copies of most network channels.
the mother and father of the programmer created the pitfall that must be worked around...
There is simply no valid excuse for failing to use these methods to prevent SQL Injection.
you're not accepting "job creation to fix the mess"? think of the unemployed!
i get more offended when people ask questions in the negative sense... like "you didn't wear the dundee hat?"... popular opinion says that the response "no" means "i did not wear the hat" while logic says that the response "yes" would also mean "i did not wear the hat".
people adapt to other people, and some people are dumb.
which is worse, personalized corporate attacks long after the person has left the corporation, or generalized cultural observations? or isn't there a difference?
can the reader infer anything new about their own farts, or the tendency of stinkiness levels in the farts of others?
you are claiming "yes, they can"... you are claiming that everyone's farts are now explicitly stinkier on average than they believe them to be just because an article exists with a vague headline.
you obviously have either little regard or experience regarding journalistic integrity. perhaps i have too much of both.
The conditional probability ("conditional" means based on knowledge) of Enceladus' potential habitability for life has gone up base on our increased knowledge. So in a factual context, "nothing has changed" is still completely wrong.
that would be true if an increase in knowledge was stated. however, it wasn't; so in a truly factual context, your claim that my claim is "completely wrong" is totally wrong.
my main problem with the threaded approach is the overhead to allow real-time applications such as audio recording to run in a pool of other processes using the same core. a lot of predictability is lost when the pipeline flow is variable... the overhead of regaining a similar level of predictability wipes out most of the perceived gains, and lowers maximum achievable quality.
it's all application specific obviously, but i believe multiple MIPS cores can always do any job in any environment whereas a single threaded MIPS core is sometimes not capable of doing a specific job...
in the context of our cold and mostly lifeless solar system implicitly suggests a degree of habitability higher than the default
so the default degree of habitability is based on our current understanding that you are claiming is and has changed. in the context of a universe with a changing default degree of habitability implicitly makes all claims relative to it non-deterministic.
However even the simplest of person could see that saying "could be habitable" in the context of our cold and mostly lifeless solar system implicitly suggests a degree of habitability higher than the default which is an extremely remote definition of "could". That's why it's a news item.
the most complex of person might immediately understand that "could be habitable" is equal to "could be unhabitable"... but you seem to believe that news items are all magically justified based on nothing but their existence. that's why you are incorrect.
if you read the headline literally and with a deliberate lack of context, provided by either the summary or personal knowledge, it could mean nothing has changed.
noooooo.... it does mean nothing has changed.
which of these headlines do you feel is "most correct" using your understanding of "variations in degree":
saturn moon hosts life maybe one day
saturn moon more hospitable to life than once thought
new probe data shows saturn moon contains some necessities for known forms of life
my problem is that the LEAST correct headline was chosen.
nothing has implicitly changed.
the correct headline as written by an informed editor, such as yourself, would thus read, "increase in our knowledge regarding saturn moon".
only someone who is either uniformed, irresponsible, or lying would write the headline in it's current form.