If these companies spend 2/3 on marketing, that means they could sell they product for third the current price in the Third World countries. Why? Simply because their marketing strategy is targeted primarily on the First World citizens, and on stuff like cures-against-cold, Viagra, and similar.
Marketing is necessary only to sell non-essential products: If you have AIDS you don't need a TV commercial to tell you to save your life. Imagine those 2/3 used for real research instead... but the fact is that research doesn't pay. The best business strategy is to pick promising discoveries from the university research, pay for the government testing, devise a good marketing scheme and collect profits.
Apart from the fact that you forgot the recursive call, this code exactly shows one of the problems of functional programming. Yes, the code is beautiful, but it's also slower than it should be. The problem is the list join ++ that must be avoided, as any LISP programmer knows. You should youse the accumulator technique, like this:
qsort l = qsort1 l []
qsort [] tail = tail
qsort (x:xs) tail = elts_lt_x (x : elts_greq_x)
where
elts_lt_x = qsort1 [y | y <- xs, y < x] tail
elts_greq_x = qsort1 [y | y <- xs, y >= x] tail
Gosh, this is really a hard question as you can see from the apparent lack of enthusiastic answers. If only you asked where can you find BAD, AWFUL code I can guarantee there would be a lot more links. I mean, there are movements devoted to producing as bad code as possible. Take a look at Obfuscated C Code Contest. You can learn from negative examples as well, and they are much easier to find.
Re:Is MySQL ready for that?
on
MySQL FS
·
· Score: 1
At the moment the proposed filesystem is read-only, and that menas locking is not an issue. Besides, the primary purpose of the proposal seems is to provide more convenient interface for very simple databases. So it will fit perfectly with MySQL, making it even more simple to use and also even more feature-poor. In my opinion it's a better interface to MySQL than its existing brain-dead subset of SQL.
That is a problem. However, do notice that "views" need not be the same as "opinions". If your world-view is always to hear all sides in any argument, then you'll belong in the clique with the same view. You will see all the insightful, argumentative comments from all sides. Still, you will isolate yourself from the "alternative view" of those people who just enjoy bashing the other side. If you think that's wrong too, sorry I have no answer.
And if your opinion is that mindless Microsoft-bashers and others alike should be made to read the alternative view, I disagree. Whoever wants to commit the intellectual suicide, I don't care to stop him. I just don't want to listen to him.
The solution is to split the sheep herd into several sub-herds whose members happily agree, and let the black sheeps which want to hear differing opinions roam among them.
Imagine an N-dimensional space, where every user and every posting is represented as a point in that space. Whenever you rate a posting with "+", your point and that posting's position move a bit closer to each other. When you rate a posting with "-" these two positions move away from each other. The poster's point also moves in the same direction as his postings.
Now, when you post a new comment, at first it will appear right where you are. After several "moderations" from other users it will be moved to where it's liked better, and you will be dragged along after it.
After many iterations, this kind of "Slashdot Space" should evolve into several clusters of think-alike users and comments they like. So if you rate negatively all KDE-vs-Gnome pissing contests, you'll soon get far away from them, and from the users that post them.
Your reading treshold would be maximum distance between your own position and position of acceptable posts. Or you can think of it as "eye-sight". Another useful thing could be to assign each comment a "size" quality, or visibility. Comments rated positively from many different users "grow" and become visible from afar. This is probably necessary to prevent a split-up of the forum into several group of users who never hear of each other.
Now the difficult part is the choice of N (dimensionality) and the initial system state. You could set some meta-positions or lighthouses, landmarks, whatever, that represent the unmovable positions people can use to orient themselves. For example, there could be a M$-bashing landmark, Pro-M$ landmark on the opposite side of the universe, goat.cx landmark, Pro-Napster landmark, etc.
Cool thing is, if you keep a database of all +/- ratings, you can always generate a new version of the space if a need arises, like if a new dimension (er, landmark) pops up. And even better, you can "dumb down" the space to any two dimensions and show it as a graphic on demand. Now that would give a whole new meaning to whereami command:).
The article is simply wrong on most accounts, but worth reading. One thing that got me thinking:
It is my belief, for which I offer no apology, that most of that technology is making people dumber: It is teaching them how to assemble massive amounts of information, of arcane minutia, without simultaneously teaching them how to assemble those bits of information into integrated bodies of knowledge -- such integration being the only function that distinguishes the human brain from a mechanical computer.
This seems so true, on some self-reflection. Does anybody know of any psychological studies about effects of extensive Internet surfing and SlashDot on human mind?
I took a quick look at the Pliant documentation and I can tell two thngs so far:
1. This project took a lot of work (15 years is the claim).
2. And it was probably all in vain.
If the author took at least one of those 15 years to take a look at existing programming languages he could have used a simple and stable language as a base. How can he call LISP a logical language!? LISP is a functional language. But terminology is the least problem here. Check this quotation:
A language is a bridge between the human way of coding a program and the computer way. I assert that Pliant is the best way now available, because it addresses the bridging goal with the highest level of flexibility.
Come on, if somebody asserted to have created the best OS ever I could even believe it. But the best programming language? Such a thing simply can't exist, and event if it could Pliant has no chance from what I've seen. The only interesting part of it is the full meta-programming ability integrated with JIT-compiler, but there are languages with far cleaner meta-programming facilities. Only in the research community, though. If Pliant manages to bring more attention to great applicability of meta-programming it may be worth those 15 years of work, though.
I came up with a similar idea. Actually it's almost the same, except that my model was a metric space instead of network.
Simply imagine an N-dimensional space, where every user and every posting is represented as a point in that space. Whenever you rate a posting with "+", your point and that posting's position move a bit closer to each other. When you rate a posting with "-" these two positions move away from each other. The poster's point also moves in the same direction as his postings.
Now, when you post a new comment, at first it will appear right where you are. After several "moderations" from other users it will be moved to where it's liked better, and you will be dragged along after it.
After many iterations, this kind of "Slashdot Space" should evolve into several clusters of think-alike users and comments they like. So if you rate negatively all KDE-vs-Gnome pissing contests, you'll soon get far away from them, and from the users that post them.
Your reading treshold would be maximum distance between your own position and position of acceptable posts. Or you can think of it as "eye-sight". Another useful thing could be to assign each comment a "size" quality, or visibility. Comments rated positively from many different users "grow" and become visible from afar. This is probably necessary to prevent a split-up of the forum into several group of users who never hear of each other.
Now the difficult part is the choice of N (dimensionality) and the initial system state. You could set some meta-positions or lighthouses, landmarks, whatever, that represent the unmovable positions people can use to orient themselves. For example, there could be a M$-bashing landmark, Pro-M$ landmark on the opposite side of the universe, goat.cx landmark, Pro-Napster landmark, etc.
Cool thing is, if you keep a database of all +/- ratings, you can always generate a new version of the space if a need arises, like if a new dimension (er, landmark) pops up. And even better, you can "dumb down" the space to any two dimensions and show it as a graphic on demand. Now that would give a whole new meaning to whereami command.:)
You might be aware that the U.S. constitution gives the power to declare war only to Congress, not the president. Will you attack other contries without consent of the Congress if you get elected? If the answer is "yes" (or "maybe"), are there any other cases where you wouldn't respect the Constitution?
Here's a proposal to use some math in a completely different system:
1. Let everybody moderate any post.
2. There's no karma, or any other kind of score. The system keeps the complete moderation history of every user instead.
3. A given comment may have different scores for different users.
4. When somebody moderates a comment, it has more effect on the comment score you see if his taste is closer to yours.
5. This "taste closeness" (or call it agreement) between two users can also be calculated using their moderation histories.
But how does the software calculate the scores?
Probably by calculating an average value of all its (moderations adjusted by moderators' agreement). And the taste agreement between two users could be calculated in a symmetrical way: as an average value, or sum, of all differences in their moderations.
So, when you make your first moderation, everybody who did the same moderation gets "closer" to you. Everybody who disagreed goes away. Click the reload button and you'll instantly get a filtered view.
Actually this "closeness" is a proper terminology if you think about it in terms of topology. Imagine a metric space of "tastes". Individual users and individual comments get represented as points in this space. Whenever you moderate a comment positively your point and the comment's point move closer. When you moderate negatively the points move away. And everybody else in your proximity will get closer or further to the comment, but people who disagree with you won't.
Did anybody understand what I'm trying to describe? Please?
I like this idea. The only problem is, how can you tell which moderator is a "smart" one? The answer: through meta-moderation. Every time you meta-moderate a post up, the system reevaluates this moderator up or down, but only for you.
Actually with this kind of system there's no reason to make any difference between moderation and meta-moderation: let everybody moderate. When you moderate a story that affects only you and people who already trust your opinion. Once you start trolling, people who disagree with you will quickly moderate your opinion down, and your opionion won't be counted for them.
The only problem I see here is the need to keep complete history of everybody's moderation. A simple karma-score won't suffice. But it's probably not too demanding.
Slashdot Mirror
Marketing is necessary only to sell non-essential products: If you have AIDS you don't need a TV commercial to tell you to save your life. Imagine those 2/3 used for real research instead... but the fact is that research doesn't pay. The best business strategy is to pick promising discoveries from the university research, pay for the government testing, devise a good marketing scheme and collect profits.
Gosh, this is really a hard question as you can see from the apparent lack of enthusiastic answers. If only you asked where can you find BAD, AWFUL code I can guarantee there would be a lot more links. I mean, there are movements devoted to producing as bad code as possible. Take a look at Obfuscated C Code Contest. You can learn from negative examples as well, and they are much easier to find.
At the moment the proposed filesystem is read-only, and that menas locking is not an issue. Besides, the primary purpose of the proposal seems is to provide more convenient interface for very simple databases. So it will fit perfectly with MySQL, making it even more simple to use and also even more feature-poor. In my opinion it's a better interface to MySQL than its existing brain-dead subset of SQL.
Actually if you're serious about implementing it, I'm willing to help. Let me know if/when you start, and I'll see if I can find some spare time.
And if your opinion is that mindless Microsoft-bashers and others alike should be made to read the alternative view, I disagree. Whoever wants to commit the intellectual suicide, I don't care to stop him. I just don't want to listen to him.
Imagine an N-dimensional space, where every user and every posting is represented as a point in that space. Whenever you rate a posting with "+", your point and that posting's position move a bit closer to each other. When you rate a posting with "-" these two positions move away from each other. The poster's point also moves in the same direction as his postings.
Now, when you post a new comment, at first it will appear right where you are. After several "moderations" from other users it will be moved to where it's liked better, and you will be dragged along after it.
After many iterations, this kind of "Slashdot Space" should evolve into several clusters of think-alike users and comments they like. So if you rate negatively all KDE-vs-Gnome pissing contests, you'll soon get far away from them, and from the users that post them.
Your reading treshold would be maximum distance between your own position and position of acceptable posts. Or you can think of it as "eye-sight". Another useful thing could be to assign each comment a "size" quality, or visibility. Comments rated positively from many different users "grow" and become visible from afar. This is probably necessary to prevent a split-up of the forum into several group of users who never hear of each other.
Now the difficult part is the choice of N (dimensionality) and the initial system state. You could set some meta-positions or lighthouses, landmarks, whatever, that represent the unmovable positions people can use to orient themselves. For example, there could be a M$-bashing landmark, Pro-M$ landmark on the opposite side of the universe, goat.cx landmark, Pro-Napster landmark, etc.
Cool thing is, if you keep a database of all +/- ratings, you can always generate a new version of the space if a need arises, like if a new dimension (er, landmark) pops up. And even better, you can "dumb down" the space to any two dimensions and show it as a graphic on demand. Now that would give a whole new meaning to whereami command :).
It is my belief, for which I offer no apology, that most of that technology is making people dumber: It is teaching them how to assemble massive amounts of information, of arcane minutia, without simultaneously teaching them how to assemble those bits of information into integrated bodies of knowledge -- such integration being the only function that distinguishes the human brain from a mechanical computer.
This seems so true, on some self-reflection. Does anybody know of any psychological studies about effects of extensive Internet surfing and SlashDot on human mind?
1. This project took a lot of work (15 years is the claim).
2. And it was probably all in vain.
If the author took at least one of those 15 years to take a look at existing programming languages he could have used a simple and stable language as a base. How can he call LISP a logical language!? LISP is a functional language. But terminology is the least problem here. Check this quotation:
A language is a bridge between the human way of coding a program and the computer way. I assert that Pliant is the best way now available, because it addresses the bridging goal with the highest level of flexibility.
Come on, if somebody asserted to have created the best OS ever I could even believe it. But the best programming language? Such a thing simply can't exist, and event if it could Pliant has no chance from what I've seen. The only interesting part of it is the full meta-programming ability integrated with JIT-compiler, but there are languages with far cleaner meta-programming facilities. Only in the research community, though. If Pliant manages to bring more attention to great applicability of meta-programming it may be worth those 15 years of work, though.
Simply imagine an N-dimensional space, where every user and every posting is represented as a point in that space. Whenever you rate a posting with "+", your point and that posting's position move a bit closer to each other. When you rate a posting with "-" these two positions move away from each other. The poster's point also moves in the same direction as his postings.
Now, when you post a new comment, at first it will appear right where you are. After several "moderations" from other users it will be moved to where it's liked better, and you will be dragged along after it.
After many iterations, this kind of "Slashdot Space" should evolve into several clusters of think-alike users and comments they like. So if you rate negatively all KDE-vs-Gnome pissing contests, you'll soon get far away from them, and from the users that post them.
Your reading treshold would be maximum distance between your own position and position of acceptable posts. Or you can think of it as "eye-sight". Another useful thing could be to assign each comment a "size" quality, or visibility. Comments rated positively from many different users "grow" and become visible from afar. This is probably necessary to prevent a split-up of the forum into several group of users who never hear of each other.
Now the difficult part is the choice of N (dimensionality) and the initial system state. You could set some meta-positions or lighthouses, landmarks, whatever, that represent the unmovable positions people can use to orient themselves. For example, there could be a M$-bashing landmark, Pro-M$ landmark on the opposite side of the universe, goat.cx landmark, Pro-Napster landmark, etc.
Cool thing is, if you keep a database of all +/- ratings, you can always generate a new version of the space if a need arises, like if a new dimension (er, landmark) pops up. And even better, you can "dumb down" the space to any two dimensions and show it as a graphic on demand. Now that would give a whole new meaning to whereami command.:)
You might be aware that the U.S. constitution gives the power to declare war only to Congress, not the president. Will you attack other contries without consent of the Congress if you get elected? If the answer is "yes" (or "maybe"), are there any other cases where you wouldn't respect the Constitution?
1. Let everybody moderate any post.
2. There's no karma, or any other kind of score. The system keeps the complete moderation history of every user instead.
3. A given comment may have different scores for different users.
4. When somebody moderates a comment, it has more effect on the comment score you see if his taste is closer to yours.
5. This "taste closeness" (or call it agreement) between two users can also be calculated using their moderation histories.
But how does the software calculate the scores? Probably by calculating an average value of all its (moderations adjusted by moderators' agreement). And the taste agreement between two users could be calculated in a symmetrical way: as an average value, or sum, of all differences in their moderations.
So, when you make your first moderation, everybody who did the same moderation gets "closer" to you. Everybody who disagreed goes away. Click the reload button and you'll instantly get a filtered view.
Actually this "closeness" is a proper terminology if you think about it in terms of topology. Imagine a metric space of "tastes". Individual users and individual comments get represented as points in this space. Whenever you moderate a comment positively your point and the comment's point move closer. When you moderate negatively the points move away. And everybody else in your proximity will get closer or further to the comment, but people who disagree with you won't.
Did anybody understand what I'm trying to describe? Please?
Actually with this kind of system there's no reason to make any difference between moderation and meta-moderation: let everybody moderate. When you moderate a story that affects only you and people who already trust your opinion. Once you start trolling, people who disagree with you will quickly moderate your opinion down, and your opionion won't be counted for them.
The only problem I see here is the need to keep complete history of everybody's moderation. A simple karma-score won't suffice. But it's probably not too demanding.