Many of the commenters seem pretty cranky, but I am very excited by this tool, it's exactly what I need and very nicely put together. I'll certainly be weaving it into my project. It shows the same dense but tight information presentation, use of AJAX techniques, and clean, modern web coding techniques that makes Stack Overflow so popular in the first place.
As a Libertarian, I would disagree with your argument.:) The Fed and Bernanke and your "debt-based life-cycle" manipulate interest rates in order to incentivize companies to spend now instead of saving. This has always seemed to be short-sighted. If the company thinks it best to save, it is probably best for them to save. I tend to believe their analysis of their own financial situation. The Fed, however, thinks that saving is bad and uses inflation to force them to spend earlier than they would have. They think this "keeps the economy going". I think it is more likely to be a wasteful short-term stimulus to the economy. The economy isn't just a chart that we need to keep high, it's a collection of a million million personal/corporate decisions, and forcing those decisions to be less optimal for the individuals in ways that may stimulate the chart does NOT necessarily improve the reality.
I personally hate this 'feature'. I don't understand what it defends against, because someone hitting refresh a few times in a browser is hardly a serious DoS attack. And it got in the way of me (and many others) the first time they rolled it out because the "DoS" it was defending against was me hitting my local test webserver which was returning a 500 because the page code was broken.
Although Google obviously won't be releasing it's search algorithms it might well release the code for things like the Google FileSystem (PDF) which may benefit a lot of people.
I totally disagree. I think the GoogleFS is a much more valuable commodity than the search algos. I mean, frankly, I doubt think the search algos are that brilliant, past the initial lightbulb of PageRank... just refinements and optimizations. The tough part is harnessing the -insane- computing power necessary to serve the world's searching needs, and doing it cheaply.
Despite that, I do hope you're right, and maybe you are... since the distributed FS/OS they've developed is, like I said, so much more valuable. What good would search algorithm descriptions do anyone except aid their competition? I can't stick Google's algorithms into anything I have... but a nifto OS that can combine a few computers and let me run stuff across them trivially? -THAT'S PRETTY COOL-
I can't believe how serious you are all taking this. Believe me, it doesn't work. I saw Project Grizzly. I saw the bearsuits. This guy is the most bumbling, goofiest engineer I've ever had the sheer pleasure of mocking. And if it does work, then he's the LUCKIEST most bumbling, goofiest engineer that I've ever had the sheer pleasure of mocking. And, oh yes, I will still mock. Thank God for Troy Hurtubise.
The AC that posted this must have started caljobs.com, cause I went to that site hoping to find a Cal-job. (I know, but I've been lookin for a job for months, and I'm getting desperate.) It looks like my hotmail inbox. Spam, spam, porn spam, spam. Oh well...
I just wanted to bring out two paragraphs in the secondary link (dangers of the internet) about the transitive property of 'objectionability', in case some people missed it:
The status of an encrypted file under the censorship law (Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act) is very broadly defined. If a file can "by the use of a computer program" be converted into an objectionable file, then the original file is judged to be objectionable.
However, for any two arbitrary bit strings a program can be written to convert one into the other, so strictly according to the legal definition every file is objectionable.
That is a great example of TERRIBLE law-writing. I mean it sounds all la-de-da at first glance, but don't people re-read these things? How can you sign something into law when it clearly implies that every file on every computer is 'objectionable', and thus illegal. Dammit! Laws are important and writing them like that is negligent!
Laws like that only go to convince me that the government is too incompetent to make any important judgments for me. If they'd only stop trying, they might not come off like such buffoons and we'd all be winners!
stop the spammers with a central email list
on
Do-Not-Email Registries?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Legislation introduced in Colorado and Missouri would create a central database of residents who don't want to receive unsolicited e-mail...
Great, we'll stop the spammers by building a huge central repository of working email addresses, and then give access to the lists to spammers worldwide. How could THAT backfire?
What if the cockpit was permanently and irrevokably locked off from the cabin? Then the plane cannot be hijacked once it's in the air no matter what the hijackers do. And there's no need for freedom-restricting military security in all airports...
Slashdot Mirror
Many of the commenters seem pretty cranky, but I am very excited by this tool, it's exactly what I need and very nicely put together. I'll certainly be weaving it into my project. It shows the same dense but tight information presentation, use of AJAX techniques, and clean, modern web coding techniques that makes Stack Overflow so popular in the first place.
As a Libertarian, I would disagree with your argument. :) The Fed and Bernanke and your "debt-based life-cycle" manipulate interest rates in order to incentivize companies to spend now instead of saving. This has always seemed to be short-sighted. If the company thinks it best to save, it is probably best for them to save. I tend to believe their analysis of their own financial situation. The Fed, however, thinks that saving is bad and uses inflation to force them to spend earlier than they would have. They think this "keeps the economy going". I think it is more likely to be a wasteful short-term stimulus to the economy. The economy isn't just a chart that we need to keep high, it's a collection of a million million personal/corporate decisions, and forcing those decisions to be less optimal for the individuals in ways that may stimulate the chart does NOT necessarily improve the reality.
Here is the chromium issue, which was quite trafficy:
Issue 66062: ERR_TEMPORARILY_THROTTLED makes web development difficult
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=66062
I personally hate this 'feature'. I don't understand what it defends against, because someone hitting refresh a few times in a browser is hardly a serious DoS attack. And it got in the way of me (and many others) the first time they rolled it out because the "DoS" it was defending against was me hitting my local test webserver which was returning a 500 because the page code was broken.
I totally disagree. I think the GoogleFS is a much more valuable commodity than the search algos. I mean, frankly, I doubt think the search algos are that brilliant, past the initial lightbulb of PageRank... just refinements and optimizations. The tough part is harnessing the -insane- computing power necessary to serve the world's searching needs, and doing it cheaply.
Despite that, I do hope you're right, and maybe you are... since the distributed FS/OS they've developed is, like I said, so much more valuable. What good would search algorithm descriptions do anyone except aid their competition? I can't stick Google's algorithms into anything I have... but a nifto OS that can combine a few computers and let me run stuff across them trivially? -THAT'S PRETTY COOL-
I can't believe how serious you are all taking this. Believe me, it doesn't work. I saw Project Grizzly. I saw the bearsuits. This guy is the most bumbling, goofiest engineer I've ever had the sheer pleasure of mocking. And if it does work, then he's the LUCKIEST most bumbling, goofiest engineer that I've ever had the sheer pleasure of mocking. And, oh yes, I will still mock. Thank God for Troy Hurtubise.
x/0 isn't necessarily infinity (as in +infinity). Think about it this way. Yes, it's true that:
1/1 = 1, 1/.5 = 2, 1/.25 = 4, etc, etc, so by that pattern 1/0 is indeed +infinity.
But, what about:
1/-1 = -1, 1/-.5 = -2, 1/-.25 = -4, etc, etc, so by THIS pattern, 1/0 is -infinity.
So it's undefined. It's kinda both positive infinity and negative infinity at the same time.
The AC that posted this must have started caljobs.com, cause I went to that site hoping to find a Cal-job. (I know, but I've been lookin for a job for months, and I'm getting desperate.) It looks like my hotmail inbox. Spam, spam, porn spam, spam. Oh well...
I just wanted to bring out two paragraphs in the secondary link (dangers of the internet) about the transitive property of 'objectionability', in case some people missed it:
The status of an encrypted file under the censorship law (Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act) is very broadly defined. If a file can "by the use of a computer program" be converted into an objectionable file, then the original file is judged to be objectionable.
However, for any two arbitrary bit strings a program can be written to convert one into the other, so strictly according to the legal definition every file is objectionable.
That is a great example of TERRIBLE law-writing. I mean it sounds all la-de-da at first glance, but don't people re-read these things? How can you sign something into law when it clearly implies that every file on every computer is 'objectionable', and thus illegal. Dammit! Laws are important and writing them like that is negligent!
Laws like that only go to convince me that the government is too incompetent to make any important judgments for me. If they'd only stop trying, they might not come off like such buffoons and we'd all be winners!
Great, we'll stop the spammers by building a huge central repository of working email addresses, and then give access to the lists to spammers worldwide. How could THAT backfire?
scott
What if the cockpit was permanently and irrevokably locked off from the cabin? Then the plane cannot be hijacked once it's in the air no matter what the hijackers do. And there's no need for freedom-restricting military security in all airports...
Scott