Or even more devlishly, put it in your ident where noone will notice it
Writing out a line in IRC only transmits your nick and the line itself to users in the channel. So putting 'stopspy' as your email address or as your uname won't work unless someone whoises you or does a/list on the channel. But perhaps some IRC clients will automatically/whois all users in a channel when you join -- but it's not part of IRC's underlying behavior.
There's undoubtably numerous experts at Google that know about XSS mitigation techniques. However, there's a big difference between knowing how to do something and having enough time in your schedule to properly design code that's not vulnerable to cross-site scripting attacks and having enough resources to test the design. I think the responsibility for this problem lies in the QE and scheduling rather than in Google's supposed incompetence.
Anyone given any consideration that the downgrading of the stock by the analyst community might be a deliberate act of passive-aggressive punishment?
It's well established that analysts give better ratings to companies who produce predictable earnings results. Since Google is not providing its own guidance on the future, it's to be expected that it will receive a lower average analyst rating as a result.
The best way to produce value to your shareholders is to grow a company over the long haul, even if it sacrifices short-term cashouts for the inside traders.
Inside trading is the trading of a company's stick based on information non-public information. For example, if you worked at Google and you knew it's quarterly earnings were $2 vs. the street's $1.50, and you bought stock in anticipation of the earnings release, you would be an inside trader. I think the term you meant was simply 'traders'.
How is not talking to analysts disrepectful to the average shareholder? The average shareholder doesn't have time or sometimes even access to read analyst reports, those are mainly used by the big-pocket investors.
Regulation FD requires that any information that a company gives to anyone, including analysts, must be provided to all investors. So if Google is not talking to analysts, it's not talking to anyone. Perhaps many individual investors don't have time to research into Google's statements, but to not provide any information is as disrespectful to individual investors as it is to analysts and institutions. And I personally believe that if individual investors don't have time to research into company statements they should stay in mutual funds where someone does the research for them.
You mean Levenshtein distance. The Levenshtein distance between Austria and Australia is 2. Hamming distance doesn't make much sense because the two words are different lengths.
I have an idea... why don't we melt the polar icecaps so that the sharks have more space to swim around in. Wouldn't that increase the 70% to 75% or so? Clearly we must persue this goal.
Only the Slashdot artcile has the "Now 70% Free" spin.
Once I noticed this and reread the article, it made a lot more sense -- but it's still a crap article. There's no mention of who the international team of scientists that conducted the study are, and therefore no connection with the scientist quoted and the study. It seems as if the quoted scientist used his opportunity to be quoted in an article to express concern about a real problem, overfishing, without actually knowing about the study itself. Unfortunately the writer took this spin and put it into the opening paragraph and completely threw off the importance of the study.
What really seems to have been discovered is that there aren't sharks 5,280 feet below sea-level. The original study suspects this is because there's no fish to eat down there, which is a pretty obvious fact considering there's no light down there and very high water pressure. And considering 70% of the world's ocean mass is below 5,280 feet, therefore sharks are not in 70% of the ocean.
The article's spin is that shark populations are dwindling, but what the scientists actually discovered is that sharks do not live in the oceans' abyssal zone, "in perpetual darkness at depths below 6,560 feet". One reasoning given for this is the lack of food at that depth. However, has abundant food ever existed there? Current pelagic trawl fishing nets only descend one half a mile, or 2,640 feet. In addition, sea conditions below 6,560 feet have only capable of being explored by one sea vessel -- the French bathyscaph Trieste -- at least according to Wikipedia. So we have little research into whether fish populations are growing or shrinking at these depths.
But maybe shark's CAN'T live at these depths due to the lack of light and high water pressure? Most fish in the abyssal zone are pretty bizzare, including the Deep Sea Angler. Why aren't people worried that goldfish aren't down there?
And the whole "70% shark free" calculation is based on the fact that 70% of the ocean's volume is below 6,560 feet.
In conclusion, it's nice to know that sharks do not live at the great depths of the ocean, but there's much to learn about that environment before one can form a relationship between that fact and overfishing.
Will they roll over and provide it, or will they actually resist?
Google's responses so far in the congressional hearings about their China business indicate they obey all laws within the countries they operate, including China. So if Chinese officials can legally ask for search information for Chinese citizens, Google's current stance is that they will provide it.
Google is in a bind right now because China will be one of the world's largest markets for information technology in 20-30 years. If they do not participate in the Chinese market now, local companies like Baidu will take the bulk of search engine marketshare. And it's much easier to gain marketshare in an early market than a late market (e.g. Coke versus Virgin Cola). However, obeying China's current laws is becoming a public relations nightmare for Google (and Microsoft, Yahoo) and it is tarnishing Google's "do no evil" image.
China is too large of a market for Google to pass up, though, and therefore I believe it will continue to obey all Chinese laws including providing search information in order to have a presence in China's growing economy.
I get free dialup throughout the country because I use SBC Yahoo! DSL (now renamed to something AT&T related since the acquisition, probably). I would think most frequent travelers could do the same thing -- but I don't know if free dialup is paired with DSL outside of SBC's markets.
Infinium racked up $62.7 million in losses. Of that, only $3.5 million has been lost to development costs. More of the company's money has been going toward... salaries ($11.9 million)
What's the difference between development costs and salaries? I could see that the salaries of HR people and accountants should not be counted as development costs, but what about the salaries of the developers? Is the $3.5 million figure just hardware / fabrication costs, or does it also include development salaries?
It is very simple, very basic support for simple standards that IE just isn't capable of it. I can only think of the following reasons,... B, they want to hold the web back so they can launch their own new version.
I've always wondered what level manager in a software company's hierarchy decides to make "competitive" products that break the standard. And how far down the chain of command is this stragegy known?
For example, Microsoft's Java virtual machine was developed specifically to break cross-platform support for Java. However, I doubt individual contributors / software developers on the Microsoft JVM team were told about this underlying stragegy, as it would ruin the team's morale. Instead they were likely very excited to work on a hot new technology that was going into the base Windows install. And I bet the SDE managers and program managers were equally excited. At what level was it known that this entire team was working towards making a broken technology that would screw up the very ecosystem they thought they were growing?
Or am I being to cynical? Perhaps Microsoft actually planned to support Java on Windows, despite the fact that it would erode Windows' stickiness. But Sun was already developing their own Windows JVM -- so why would Microsoft go through the effort unless it was to screw over client-side Java?
A better language doesn't make one a better programmer
I agree with this point for good programmers, but for inexperienced programmers a better language can certainly make one a better programmer. The common example is VB, which allows people with basically no programming experience to develop simple applications. But even Java's success in enterprise software is due to the proliferation of design patterns such as EJBs and MVC -- which have basically been ingrained into the language itself. These patterns allow a team of inexperienced programmers to separate complex projects into manageable pieces and use well established integration points.
Without Java's patterns many teams would be unable to come up with coherent systems in a timely manner. Projects would instead stumble while developers try to invent new architectures and learn from their mistakes. In addition, the adoption of these shared principals makes it much easier for new developers to jump into a project since the underlying design is likely similar to previous projects -- even if the code itself is absolute crap. Therefore the programmer who coded the absolute crap IS a better programmer since his code is still maintainable due to the choice of language.
"The cuts are said to be across the board,... part of an effort to 'realign' the company's operations for the next two years."
How do across the board cuts help realign anything? If they were really realigning the business, one would think they would cut from areas that aren't their future focus.
Oh, it's pretty easy to teach them. If it smells like poop, it's a stack. If you start smelling garlic and olive oil, you're probably entering a queue device.
Another thing you should take-away from the experience is the importance of diversity. If you took that money and split it among five companies, one of them being an amazing success like Apple (which has gone up 8x in five years), and the other four being dismal failures that went bankrupt, you still would have made 60% returns on your entire portfolio.
By investing in only one company, you really put yourself at a disadvantage.
You have quite a defeatist attitude. Contrary to Slashdot common belief, responding to challenges by quitting your job doesn't solve any problems, unless your challenge is to find a job where you don't have to think or do any real work. (In that case, you should probably go join this company's bureaucratic IT group -- they seem to have that area covered.)
In any case, the best way to get interdepartmental problems fixed is by providing rewards to both sides for working together. Short of that, you can start your own IT group or work with an outside company to get your solutions hosted. Your IT group should be a resource for you -- if they're not, you should be able to use other resources instead.
One of the managers I'm currently reporting to used to run into a similar problem at his last company. He's a 2nd level manager, and he decided that he would pay the salaries of a few people in the IT group in exchange for them specifically working on projects for his team. It worked great, and they were able to push out new releases every couple months. Before he started the arrangement, releases were taking 9 months.
In conclusion, you should give financial incentives to the other team to reach your goals: Whether it's through paying their salaries, or taking away their work by going with someone else. Unless they have an incentive to work with you, they probably won't.
I'll probably be modded off topic since no one here would understand what I'm saying.
Hey man, we're a lot more oldschool than you think. When my family got our first 286 computer I started to program BASIC and learned all about peeking and poking. A couple times I accidentally poked inside an infinite loop, and the 286 held up quite well -- even over prolonged periods of time.
I'm not sure what foreplay has to do with it, but I did enjoy a good game of Snarf!
That's something that irks me a little bit, the super rich Microsoft executive are always complaining about traffic in Seattle, so they want the government to pay for a better 520 bridge and other improvements. If it is so important to them, why don't they chip in a few billion between them instead of pushing it on tax payers?
Do you realize that Microsoft executives have already paid hundreds of millions of dollars in combined taxes to the State of Washington? They're well within their rights to express how they would like their contributions spent.
Slashdot Mirror
Or even more devlishly, put it in your ident where noone will notice it
/list on the channel. But perhaps some IRC clients will automatically /whois all users in a channel when you join -- but it's not part of IRC's underlying behavior.
Writing out a line in IRC only transmits your nick and the line itself to users in the channel. So putting 'stopspy' as your email address or as your uname won't work unless someone whoises you or does a
There's undoubtably numerous experts at Google that know about XSS mitigation techniques. However, there's a big difference between knowing how to do something and having enough time in your schedule to properly design code that's not vulnerable to cross-site scripting attacks and having enough resources to test the design. I think the responsibility for this problem lies in the QE and scheduling rather than in Google's supposed incompetence.
Anyone given any consideration that the downgrading of the stock by the analyst community might be a deliberate act of passive-aggressive punishment?
It's well established that analysts give better ratings to companies who produce predictable earnings results. Since Google is not providing its own guidance on the future, it's to be expected that it will receive a lower average analyst rating as a result.
The best way to produce value to your shareholders is to grow a company over the long haul, even if it sacrifices short-term cashouts for the inside traders.
Inside trading is the trading of a company's stick based on information non-public information. For example, if you worked at Google and you knew it's quarterly earnings were $2 vs. the street's $1.50, and you bought stock in anticipation of the earnings release, you would be an inside trader. I think the term you meant was simply 'traders'.
I'm fully aware of the fact that the stock market in general is not a zero-sum game.
It sure didn't seem like you were fully aware of this in your original post. I was about to write the same reply to you.
But thanks for making us fully aware that you're an asshole.
How is not talking to analysts disrepectful to the average shareholder? The average shareholder doesn't have time or sometimes even access to read analyst reports, those are mainly used by the big-pocket investors.
Regulation FD requires that any information that a company gives to anyone, including analysts, must be provided to all investors. So if Google is not talking to analysts, it's not talking to anyone. Perhaps many individual investors don't have time to research into Google's statements, but to not provide any information is as disrespectful to individual investors as it is to analysts and institutions. And I personally believe that if individual investors don't have time to research into company statements they should stay in mutual funds where someone does the research for them.
You mean Levenshtein distance. The Levenshtein distance between Austria and Australia is 2. Hamming distance doesn't make much sense because the two words are different lengths.
I have an idea... why don't we melt the polar icecaps so that the sharks have more space to swim around in. Wouldn't that increase the 70% to 75% or so? Clearly we must persue this goal.
or they can't compete with other predator species at those depths (eg. squid?).
Whoa, shark competing with squids at 2000m depth! I bet it's cold down there. Maybe it can qualify for a 2010 Winter Olympics event!!
It's 70% free compared to what?
Only the Slashdot artcile has the "Now 70% Free" spin.
Once I noticed this and reread the article, it made a lot more sense -- but it's still a crap article. There's no mention of who the international team of scientists that conducted the study are, and therefore no connection with the scientist quoted and the study. It seems as if the quoted scientist used his opportunity to be quoted in an article to express concern about a real problem, overfishing, without actually knowing about the study itself. Unfortunately the writer took this spin and put it into the opening paragraph and completely threw off the importance of the study.
What really seems to have been discovered is that there aren't sharks 5,280 feet below sea-level. The original study suspects this is because there's no fish to eat down there, which is a pretty obvious fact considering there's no light down there and very high water pressure. And considering 70% of the world's ocean mass is below 5,280 feet, therefore sharks are not in 70% of the ocean.
The article's spin is that shark populations are dwindling, but what the scientists actually discovered is that sharks do not live in the oceans' abyssal zone, "in perpetual darkness at depths below 6,560 feet". One reasoning given for this is the lack of food at that depth. However, has abundant food ever existed there? Current pelagic trawl fishing nets only descend one half a mile, or 2,640 feet. In addition, sea conditions below 6,560 feet have only capable of being explored by one sea vessel -- the French bathyscaph Trieste -- at least according to Wikipedia. So we have little research into whether fish populations are growing or shrinking at these depths.
But maybe shark's CAN'T live at these depths due to the lack of light and high water pressure? Most fish in the abyssal zone are pretty bizzare, including the Deep Sea Angler. Why aren't people worried that goldfish aren't down there?
And the whole "70% shark free" calculation is based on the fact that 70% of the ocean's volume is below 6,560 feet.
In conclusion, it's nice to know that sharks do not live at the great depths of the ocean, but there's much to learn about that environment before one can form a relationship between that fact and overfishing.
Not of Google's, but I own way more Yahoo! than I wish I did. It's had a rough 30 days. (But so has Google.)
Will they roll over and provide it, or will they actually resist?
Google's responses so far in the congressional hearings about their China business indicate they obey all laws within the countries they operate, including China. So if Chinese officials can legally ask for search information for Chinese citizens, Google's current stance is that they will provide it.
Google is in a bind right now because China will be one of the world's largest markets for information technology in 20-30 years. If they do not participate in the Chinese market now, local companies like Baidu will take the bulk of search engine marketshare. And it's much easier to gain marketshare in an early market than a late market (e.g. Coke versus Virgin Cola). However, obeying China's current laws is becoming a public relations nightmare for Google (and Microsoft, Yahoo) and it is tarnishing Google's "do no evil" image.
China is too large of a market for Google to pass up, though, and therefore I believe it will continue to obey all Chinese laws including providing search information in order to have a presence in China's growing economy.
I get free dialup throughout the country because I use SBC Yahoo! DSL (now renamed to something AT&T related since the acquisition, probably). I would think most frequent travelers could do the same thing -- but I don't know if free dialup is paired with DSL outside of SBC's markets.
Time to add AOL to the list of great moments in pricing failures.
Infinium racked up $62.7 million in losses. Of that, only $3.5 million has been lost to development costs. More of the company's money has been going toward ... salaries ($11.9 million)
What's the difference between development costs and salaries? I could see that the salaries of HR people and accountants should not be counted as development costs, but what about the salaries of the developers? Is the $3.5 million figure just hardware / fabrication costs, or does it also include development salaries?
It is very simple, very basic support for simple standards that IE just isn't capable of it. I can only think of the following reasons, ... B, they want to hold the web back so they can launch their own new version.
I've always wondered what level manager in a software company's hierarchy decides to make "competitive" products that break the standard. And how far down the chain of command is this stragegy known?
For example, Microsoft's Java virtual machine was developed specifically to break cross-platform support for Java. However, I doubt individual contributors / software developers on the Microsoft JVM team were told about this underlying stragegy, as it would ruin the team's morale. Instead they were likely very excited to work on a hot new technology that was going into the base Windows install. And I bet the SDE managers and program managers were equally excited. At what level was it known that this entire team was working towards making a broken technology that would screw up the very ecosystem they thought they were growing?
Or am I being to cynical? Perhaps Microsoft actually planned to support Java on Windows, despite the fact that it would erode Windows' stickiness. But Sun was already developing their own Windows JVM -- so why would Microsoft go through the effort unless it was to screw over client-side Java?
dragon myth ... exist[s] independently in different cultures (asian, european, even native american)
You forgot about the Strongbadia culture!
A better language doesn't make one a better programmer
I agree with this point for good programmers, but for inexperienced programmers a better language can certainly make one a better programmer. The common example is VB, which allows people with basically no programming experience to develop simple applications. But even Java's success in enterprise software is due to the proliferation of design patterns such as EJBs and MVC -- which have basically been ingrained into the language itself. These patterns allow a team of inexperienced programmers to separate complex projects into manageable pieces and use well established integration points.
Without Java's patterns many teams would be unable to come up with coherent systems in a timely manner. Projects would instead stumble while developers try to invent new architectures and learn from their mistakes. In addition, the adoption of these shared principals makes it much easier for new developers to jump into a project since the underlying design is likely similar to previous projects -- even if the code itself is absolute crap. Therefore the programmer who coded the absolute crap IS a better programmer since his code is still maintainable due to the choice of language.
"The cuts are said to be across the board, ... part of an effort to 'realign' the company's operations for the next two years."
How do across the board cuts help realign anything? If they were really realigning the business, one would think they would cut from areas that aren't their future focus.
Oh, it's pretty easy to teach them. If it smells like poop, it's a stack. If you start smelling garlic and olive oil, you're probably entering a queue device.
Another thing you should take-away from the experience is the importance of diversity. If you took that money and split it among five companies, one of them being an amazing success like Apple (which has gone up 8x in five years), and the other four being dismal failures that went bankrupt, you still would have made 60% returns on your entire portfolio.
By investing in only one company, you really put yourself at a disadvantage.
You have quite a defeatist attitude. Contrary to Slashdot common belief, responding to challenges by quitting your job doesn't solve any problems, unless your challenge is to find a job where you don't have to think or do any real work. (In that case, you should probably go join this company's bureaucratic IT group -- they seem to have that area covered.)
In any case, the best way to get interdepartmental problems fixed is by providing rewards to both sides for working together. Short of that, you can start your own IT group or work with an outside company to get your solutions hosted. Your IT group should be a resource for you -- if they're not, you should be able to use other resources instead.
One of the managers I'm currently reporting to used to run into a similar problem at his last company. He's a 2nd level manager, and he decided that he would pay the salaries of a few people in the IT group in exchange for them specifically working on projects for his team. It worked great, and they were able to push out new releases every couple months. Before he started the arrangement, releases were taking 9 months.
In conclusion, you should give financial incentives to the other team to reach your goals: Whether it's through paying their salaries, or taking away their work by going with someone else. Unless they have an incentive to work with you, they probably won't.
I'll probably be modded off topic since no one here would understand what I'm saying.
Hey man, we're a lot more oldschool than you think. When my family got our first 286 computer I started to program BASIC and learned all about peeking and poking. A couple times I accidentally poked inside an infinite loop, and the 286 held up quite well -- even over prolonged periods of time.
I'm not sure what foreplay has to do with it, but I did enjoy a good game of Snarf!
That's something that irks me a little bit, the super rich Microsoft executive are always complaining about traffic in Seattle, so they want the government to pay for a better 520 bridge and other improvements. If it is so important to them, why don't they chip in a few billion between them instead of pushing it on tax payers?
Do you realize that Microsoft executives have already paid hundreds of millions of dollars in combined taxes to the State of Washington? They're well within their rights to express how they would like their contributions spent.
I'd never want another dime if I had that much. Hell, I could give half of it away, live off the interest
Hmm, why would you collect interest, considering that you don't want another dime?