It's one thing to fire someone for writing an article. It's quite another to *completely purge everything she ever wrote*! Whatever happened to the sanctity of archives?
"True, I think bloggers in general don't have credibility (because I can become a blogger right now and spout out the same nonesense as this Om Malik).." You're confusing credibility with barrier-to-entry. Go read the cluetrain manifesto. Blogs do for information what the free market did for money: they cause the cream to more reliably rise to the top.
You could become a blogger right now, but I wager you couldn't immediately get an FPP on slashdot. And say what you will about the quality of slashdot, it is read by a *lot* of people. So I think Om Malik has a little more credibility than you, neh?
Personally I stopped getting my news from the mainstream a long time ago. I'd rather get my information from a lot of people of varying credibilities than from a few self-professed beacons of objectivity who are more open to temptation and corruption because "everyone reads them."
And no, I don't have a blog. Perhaps I will once I learn to avoid run-on sentences.
"Posting derogatory messages about sensitive subjects on newsgroups and chat rooms to bait users into responding." Notice how the definition says nothing about whether the message is 'right' or 'wrong'. GoogleGuy was definitely not trying to bait others, and his post had a lot about the inner workings of google that I didn't know about. Perhaps you already knew all that (though I kinda doubt it), perhaps 'informative' is subjective. But 'troll' is not.
As pointed out earlier in this post, when Linus says something about Linux, or Bill Gates about MS, or GoogleGuy or Sergei Brin about Google, it is rational to consider it more informative than if just anybody said it. Even if it contains speculation about the future it is more likely to be fact in future, just because they're saying it. Even if you disagree with them, it behooves you to listen to them because they likely have greater leverage than you do. And mod'ing what they say -1 does everyone a disservice because then nobody will read it, and others who agree with you will not be able to 'know the enemy'.
I know all this is off-topic. But one spreads the word..
That's right, the hallowed tradition of mod'ing up comments you agree with, no matter how inane they are, and of mod'ing those you dislike down. How is GoogleGuy's post a troll exactly?
Wow, that's a lot to read into one sentence of mine. Thanks so much for informing me that Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity and enlightening me about Kepler's laws.
I didn't say the ancients were better than Isaac Newton. I said *the story* of the Chaldeans was better. I drew a parallel between the empirical observations they made that led Hipparchus to his models and Tycho Brahe's observations that led to Kepler's and Newton's models. Imagine one man spending his life observing the skies. Now imagine generations doing the same thing for a millenium.
*Now* imagine a world where you reflect on what others say before responding.
Reading this story, the most amazing thing to me was to think of the Chaldeans of Babylon laboriously making observations over at least half a millenium, before Hipparchus came along. Beats the story of Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton.
As it turns out, there *is* a class of processors that corresponds almost exactly with functional programming. Check out some of the research on dataflow architectures. Dataflow computers use a machine language that is functional! The J-Machine at MIT was a dataflow computer.
Slashdot Mirror
First look: Tour of the UI
Blake Ross on closing windows and accessability issues
It's one thing to fire someone for writing an article. It's quite another to *completely purge everything she ever wrote*! Whatever happened to the sanctity of archives?
You mean Kristie's alley.
..if it had the words, "Don't Panic" written on the cover in large, friendly letters.
Bryan Cantrill's post on the fundamental right of reverse engineering.
"True, I think bloggers in general don't have credibility (because I can become a blogger right now and spout out the same nonesense as this Om Malik).."
You're confusing credibility with barrier-to-entry. Go read the cluetrain manifesto. Blogs do for information what the free market did for money: they cause the cream to more reliably rise to the top.
You could become a blogger right now, but I wager you couldn't immediately get an FPP on slashdot. And say what you will about the quality of slashdot, it is read by a *lot* of people. So I think Om Malik has a little more credibility than you, neh?
Personally I stopped getting my news from the mainstream a long time ago. I'd rather get my information from a lot of people of varying credibilities than from a few self-professed beacons of objectivity who are more open to temptation and corruption because "everyone reads them."
And no, I don't have a blog. Perhaps I will once I learn to avoid run-on sentences.
Here's the definition of troll. The relevant one in this case is this:
"Posting derogatory messages about sensitive subjects on newsgroups and chat rooms to bait users into responding."
Notice how the definition says nothing about whether the message is 'right' or 'wrong'. GoogleGuy was definitely not trying to bait others, and his post had a lot about the inner workings of google that I didn't know about. Perhaps you already knew all that (though I kinda doubt it), perhaps 'informative' is subjective. But 'troll' is not.
As pointed out earlier in this post, when Linus says something about Linux, or Bill Gates about MS, or GoogleGuy or Sergei Brin about Google, it is rational to consider it more informative than if just anybody said it. Even if it contains speculation about the future it is more likely to be fact in future, just because they're saying it. Even if you disagree with them, it behooves you to listen to them because they likely have greater leverage than you do. And mod'ing what they say -1 does everyone a disservice because then nobody will read it, and others who agree with you will not be able to 'know the enemy'.
I know all this is off-topic. But one spreads the word..
That's right, the hallowed tradition of mod'ing up comments you agree with, no matter how inane they are, and of mod'ing those you dislike down. How is GoogleGuy's post a troll exactly?
I have updated firefox under MS in the past.
Funny thing happened today, though. The update icon showed up, I clicked on it, and it said there were no updates. I'm still not on 1.0.1
Thank you for that concise defense.
Wow, that's a lot to read into one sentence of mine. Thanks so much for informing me that Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity and enlightening me about Kepler's laws.
I didn't say the ancients were better than Isaac Newton. I said *the story* of the Chaldeans was better. I drew a parallel between the empirical observations they made that led Hipparchus to his models and Tycho Brahe's observations that led to Kepler's and Newton's models. Imagine one man spending his life observing the skies. Now imagine generations doing the same thing for a millenium.
*Now* imagine a world where you reflect on what others say before responding.
Reading this story, the most amazing thing to me was to think of the Chaldeans of Babylon laboriously making observations over at least half a millenium, before Hipparchus came along. Beats the story of Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton.
As it turns out, there *is* a class of processors that corresponds almost exactly with functional programming. Check out some of the research on dataflow architectures. Dataflow computers use a machine language that is functional! The J-Machine at MIT was a dataflow computer.
How about letting us in on the features of sheep that current languages don't have?