linus didn't write the linux kernel all by himself, but obviously he gets the credit (in media etc) for the hard work of others. they (other kernel programmers) didn't combine the idea of joining forces and keeping the source open. many people are credited in the source though.
as far as your idea goes: if someone else puts two and two together, you didn't think hard enough before you published.
*or*
it's an inherent property of closed review systems. many eyeballs make all bugs shallow right? thus a more open system would benefit your parents.
disclaimer : i am a scientist, so i know what i'm talking about here.
that you should - preferably work on a fixed price basis - make *one* good functional design on which both parties agree - put everything in a very strictly formulated contract
they want more? slap them over the head with the contract and make them pay for it!
of course, few companies/free lance designers do this in practice, hence the horror stories presented on the aforementioned page. and hence the crazy working hours for programmers to just fix that 'little bit' extra.
in the end, following this strategy will give you a professional image from the customers' point of view (they know what they are doing), and less stress in the development process. the overhead of making a good functional design is more than worth it.
as far as i understand, liteon refused to send *any* source code to the parent poster of the linked LKML post. as said few posts before, not providing source at all is a clear GPL violation.
btw. in line with your thoughts, what i also like a lot is the fact that despite the clear example of liteon, the title of the LKML post was changed such that it indicated *potential* GPL violation -> innocent until proven guilty, right?
i don't think it's a good idea to take out HOWTO's that are not considered neccesary for *most* people.
maybe things will autoconfigure in the (near) future, but for example the ethernet HOWTO you mention was very instrumental in getting two nics to work on an old box i transformed into a router for my DSL connection some years ago.
so they might not be of use to you, but they sure as hell are to thers. and it's not as if they're using up a lot of space as compared to your average modern linux desktop environment...
no way i can come up with posts demonstrating my point of view. as they are exceptions, i gracefully acknowledge you found a useful compromise. it does depend on the treshold with which you browse (as said and agreed upon)
i know of (rare) posts that break the rules (the infamous +5 Troll comes to mind) but these are so amusing they should be visible:)
overall, i think i will stick with the old -> new sorting of posts, makes more sense to me (Nested at +2). i tend to remember things in a time-ordered manner, but of course, we're talking personal preference here.
the reason i replied to you is that i didn't understand what your problem with the representation of the posts is. i mean: would you rely on/. posters as a reliable newssource? the bottleneck for the 'rookie journalist' would likely be in source verification as opposed to information retrieval i'd say!
hey, maybe i'm not critical enough to care;)
and of course: he can count the comments to see how much the geek community cares about a certain subject;) (e.g. open source community aroused by SCO lawsuit -> yep too many comments!)
PS. i think we're wandering a bit off-topic here:)
about google's reworking of the page: did you look at the source? still a mix of css in the header, inline css, and attributes for certain tags.
still far from elegant (and efficient ?), and with such a simple layout... but i guess they have good reasons. maybe it's a compromise between page size and standards compliance/elegance.
on topic: i agree completely with your view on the "/. CSS-ing" initiative. anything that makes/. serve pages faster to more people is a Good Thing (tm).
and if you do this, the timeline of the discussion is broken and all your friends wonder why a post is regarded as redundant when they read the exact same thing few posts later with a +5 insightful.
just browse at high treshold (>+2)
maybe i'm missing something obvious and i just didn't get your point... if so please elaborate
ah, the pleasure of off-topic karma-burning threads... but hey! DRUGS !? drugs are bad, mmkay!
but seriously, i do believe that smoking marijuana is as harmful as smoking cigarettes. of course, the amount of ciggies per day i'm smoking... it would kill me if i smoked equivalent amounts of marijuana.
and indeed, space-cake is a wiser decision. i just think marijuana is a bit boring, it makes me sleepy. and i had quality shit believe me (i'm dutch:) )
depends on your point of view i would say. if your abilities in the realm of abstract thought are so minute that you cannot see a (few) word(s) as a description of a variable, that's not my problem.
by the way: using the word 'facetious' is completely out of place here. you cannot read my mind, so how can you tell i was joking? i have no sense of humor whatsoever:|
don't you know that half of science is presentation? it does not matter so much how good you are (there are many smart scientists), it matters how well you are perceived by others.
of course, in the process, many promises are made. and they are not neccesarily lies: of course many techniques have large potential. this doesn't mean that they will fulfill this potential -> that is not decided merely on technical grounds, but more on financial/political grounds.
> This could make speech recognition easier for > the computer (but the person has to learn the > language which knid of defeats the purpose of > speech recognition) but you are still limited > in much the same way as current speech > recognition as regards what the computer can > do with the regognised speech.
yeh my thoughts were similar. i was just fishing for expert opinions on the matter, and i was too lazy to explain exactly why i thought it was nonsense.
anyways think about the overkill of developing such an elegant solution for such a minor problem. i mean those few percentages of performance enhancement...
anyway, i think it *is* really cool this guy finds it interesting to tackle this 'problem' with a genetic algorithm. why not try some bayesian networks next? support vector machines? improbability drives...
ah, you broke my elaborate code... my ego is smashed to pieces:)
would you now care to tell me what the relevance is of the quoted question, instead of making fun of me? i bet you can, you sound quite intelligable...
i see the point, but is this truly representative of realiability?
you rely on peer review, on citation indices, so mostly IM-not-so-HO on matters of politics.
when you scan abstracts yourself, you can dig into the detail when something looks interesting enough, but the decision making process that drives me while scanning abstracts is not much influenced by the fact whether it is in a high impact journal (or any other high impact publishing body) or in something mostly not noteworthy.
to put it in another way: chances are high that you find most of the relevant work when you look in more trustworthy sources, but i think this is not what will solve the reliability problem.
you want to find those things that otherwise would be lost in obscurity. at least i do. not follow the next hip thing, but find new things others don't. unexpected things. boldly go where no-one went before. we're scientists, right!?;)
but then again, it's late here (almost 2 at night) and my writings might be slightly out of focus now, since few pints of guinness stand in between being sober and my current state. *grin*
allright, you can take huge amounts of text and apply some smart tricks to extract patterns from it.
but how can you determine whether the original data was trustworthy?
take the example of genome annotation (description of gene function), which would be helped greatly by including more functional descriptions from scientific literature. how do you determine whether the original publication was backed by solid experimental research?
by the reviewers of the articles? i don't think so, peer review is a snakepit filled with politics. by the amount of people who cited it? hmmmm... so hip subjects are more true?
me personally, because i'm experienced, can recognise bullshit articles when i see them. but how to translate this into an algorithm... anyone any ideas about this? or even working solutions?
(of course this is an example from my field of expertise - biology, but it applies to any set of text data/articles IMO)
Slashdot Mirror
linus didn't write the linux kernel all by himself, but obviously he gets the credit (in media etc) for the hard work of others. they (other kernel programmers) didn't combine the idea of joining forces and keeping the source open. many people are credited in the source though.
as far as your idea goes: if someone else puts two and two together, you didn't think hard enough before you published.
*or*
it's an inherent property of closed review systems. many eyeballs make all bugs shallow right? thus a more open system would benefit your parents.
disclaimer : i am a scientist, so i know what i'm
talking about here.
that you should
- preferably work on a fixed price basis
- make *one* good functional design on which both parties agree
- put everything in a very strictly formulated contract
they want more? slap them over the head with the contract and make them pay for it!
of course, few companies/free lance designers do this in practice, hence the horror stories presented on the aforementioned page. and hence the crazy working hours for programmers to just fix that 'little bit' extra.
in the end, following this strategy will give you a professional image from the customers' point of view (they know what they are doing), and less stress in the development process. the overhead of making a good functional design is more than worth it.
avoid using graphics on search pages
:)
well it doesn't seem to hurt google much
as far as i understand, liteon refused to send *any* source code to the parent poster of the linked LKML post. as said few posts before, not providing source at all is a clear GPL violation.
btw. in line with your thoughts, what i also like a lot is the fact that despite the clear example of liteon, the title of the LKML post was changed such that it indicated *potential* GPL violation -> innocent until proven guilty, right?
i don't think it's a good idea to take out HOWTO's that are not considered neccesary for *most* people.
maybe things will autoconfigure in the (near) future, but for example the ethernet HOWTO you mention was very instrumental in getting two nics to work on an old box i transformed into a router for my DSL connection some years ago.
so they might not be of use to you, but they sure as hell are to thers. and it's not as if they're using up a lot of space as compared to your average modern linux desktop environment...
i do think some HOWTO's need serious updating...
no way i can come up with posts demonstrating my point of view. as they are exceptions, i gracefully acknowledge you found a useful compromise. it does depend on the treshold with which you browse (as said and agreed upon)
:)
/. posters as a reliable newssource? the bottleneck for the 'rookie journalist' would likely be in source verification as opposed to information retrieval i'd say!
;)
;) (e.g. open source community aroused by SCO lawsuit -> yep too many comments!)
:)
i know of (rare) posts that break the rules (the infamous +5 Troll comes to mind) but these are so amusing they should be visible
overall, i think i will stick with the old -> new sorting of posts, makes more sense to me (Nested at +2). i tend to remember things in a time-ordered manner, but of course, we're talking personal preference here.
the reason i replied to you is that i didn't understand what your problem with the representation of the posts is. i mean: would you rely on
hey, maybe i'm not critical enough to care
and of course: he can count the comments to see how much the geek community cares about a certain subject
PS. i think we're wandering a bit off-topic here
about google's reworking of the page: did you look at the source? still a mix of css in the header, inline css, and attributes for certain tags.
/. serve pages faster to more people is a Good Thing (tm).
still far from elegant (and efficient ?), and with such a simple layout... but i guess they have good reasons. maybe it's a compromise between page size and standards compliance/elegance.
on topic: i agree completely with your view on the "/. CSS-ing" initiative. anything that makes
and if you do this, the timeline of the discussion is broken and all your friends wonder why a post is regarded as redundant when they read the exact same thing few posts later with a +5 insightful.
just browse at high treshold (>+2)
maybe i'm missing something obvious and i just didn't get your point... if so please elaborate
i mean: gravity is hardly a factor in the motion of molecules in the gas phase...
funny isn't it?
:)
*big wide grin*
ah time for another ciggy
he was right :)
i just like to bullshit around now and then
and indeed 'facetious' didn't quite impress me he he
ah, the pleasure of off-topic karma-burning threads... but hey! DRUGS !? drugs are bad, mmkay!
:) )
:)
but seriously, i do believe that smoking marijuana is as harmful as smoking cigarettes. of course, the amount of ciggies per day i'm smoking... it would kill me if i smoked equivalent amounts of marijuana.
and indeed, space-cake is a wiser decision. i just think marijuana is a bit boring, it makes me sleepy. and i had quality shit believe me (i'm dutch
personal preference
*grin*
:|
jay! let's burn some more karma!
depends on your point of view i would say. if your abilities in the realm of abstract thought are so minute that you cannot see a (few) word(s) as a description of a variable, that's not my problem.
by the way: using the word 'facetious' is completely out of place here. you cannot read my mind, so how can you tell i was joking? i have no sense of humor whatsoever
regarding your signature:
"All the cool kids quit smoking and are running Linux!"
i fail to see any correlation, let alone causal relationship between any of the next variables
"coolness"
"young age"
"smoking"
"running linux"
would you care to explain? i run linux, and i smoke like a madman! and yes, i am very cool! i am! (grinning like a maniac)
don't you know that half of science is presentation? it does not matter so much how good you are (there are many smart scientists), it matters how well you are perceived by others.
of course, in the process, many promises are made. and they are not neccesarily lies: of course many techniques have large potential. this doesn't mean that they will fulfill this potential -> that is not decided merely on technical grounds, but more on financial/political grounds.
just my 2c
> This could make speech recognition easier for
> the computer (but the person has to learn the
> language which knid of defeats the purpose of
> speech recognition) but you are still limited
> in much the same way as current speech
> recognition as regards what the computer can
> do with the regognised speech.
yeh my thoughts were similar. i was just fishing for expert opinions on the matter, and i was too lazy to explain exactly why i thought it was nonsense.
tnx anyways
anyways think about the overkill of developing such an elegant solution for such a minor problem. i mean those few percentages of performance enhancement...
/me bows in admiration
anyway, i think it *is* really cool this guy finds it interesting to tackle this 'problem' with a genetic algorithm. why not try some bayesian networks next? support vector machines? improbability drives...
ooops, i'm getting carried away. sorry 'bout that.
(not intended as flamebait but mod me to hell anyway *evil grin*)
ah, you broke my elaborate code... my ego is smashed to pieces :)
would you now care to tell me what the relevance is of the quoted question, instead of making fun of me? i bet you can, you sound quite intelligable...
thank you kindly for your attention!
quote: Could this type of language be used in the future to ease natural language processing pains?
i don't see how... can any linguist/CS person explain to me why this is not a bu%^&*)t question?
(there we go again -1 flamebait)
if all else fails, we still have a hird of unix replacing deamons as a backup ;)
i would assume that this will not be able to compensate the loss of spatial information caused by being (half) deaf on one side.
after all, to be able to hear the phase differences, you need at least two different sites (ears/earshells) from where you observe sound.
like it is impossible to see depth with only one eye, it will most probably be impossible to hear depth with one ear.
but then again, i didn't get my PhD on psychoacoustics or something like that... just trying to apply common sense here
so what does it actually look like? i can't find any pictures in the linked page
i see the point, but is this truly representative of realiability?
;)
you rely on peer review, on citation indices, so mostly IM-not-so-HO on matters of politics.
when you scan abstracts yourself, you can dig into the detail when something looks interesting enough, but the decision making process that drives me while scanning abstracts is not much influenced by the fact whether it is in a high impact journal (or any other high impact publishing body) or in something mostly not noteworthy.
to put it in another way: chances are high that you find most of the relevant work when you look in more trustworthy sources, but i think this is not what will solve the reliability problem.
you want to find those things that otherwise would be lost in obscurity. at least i do. not follow the next hip thing, but find new things others don't. unexpected things. boldly go where no-one went before. we're scientists, right!?
but then again, it's late here (almost 2 at night) and my writings might be slightly out of focus now, since few pints of guinness stand in between being sober and my current state. *grin*
i would say that is a problem of the underlying data, not of the textmining per se.
i always wondered about this
allright, you can take huge amounts of text and apply some smart tricks to extract patterns from it.
but how can you determine whether the original data was trustworthy?
take the example of genome annotation (description of gene function), which would be helped greatly by including more functional descriptions from scientific literature. how do you determine whether the original publication was backed by solid experimental research?
by the reviewers of the articles? i don't think so, peer review is a snakepit filled with politics. by the amount of people who cited it? hmmmm... so hip subjects are more true?
me personally, because i'm experienced, can recognise bullshit articles when i see them. but how to translate this into an algorithm... anyone any ideas about this? or even working solutions?
(of course this is an example from my field of expertise - biology, but it applies to any set of text data/articles IMO)