It's published on a blog, not squirreled away in some secret diary or whatever. Microsoft also say they're using blog search engines - well then, that implies the blog they found is actively pinging those search engines.
It's hardly a surprise to learn that deliberately publicised information is being found and read - that's the whole point, surely? I remember reading a comment from the BBC News web team a while ago saying pretty much the same thing - people were saying it was scary when the Beeb team replied to them. Er...why?
If they disagree with how Google works, they should block googlebot, or at minimum, create a robots.txt
No, that's missing the point of what I said again. I said - since when did the world work for Google? I don't want to do extra work because someone is misusing my copyright, I want them to abide by the copyright in the first place.
For just appearing in google.com's search index I have little sympathy for the sites' case. But look at Google News and tell me it isn't becoming a publisher. At the very least it needs to decide which articles should feature more prominently, whether by machine or not. I'm sticking by my normal privacy principles over this - opt in, not opt out.
All these points of view are predicated on the fact the content providers should be grateful to have their content placed in a search engine. Well, these people have explicitly said that they are not grateful, and that they don't want it to happen.
Any 'content holder' that whines needs the same thing done to them with no option for reindexing without paying enough to bleed them white
What sort of attitude is that? You see, that's exactly why people get fed up. A search engine could not exist as a commercial entity if there were nothing to search. Original content needs to be generated somewhere, and these people are saying that content is generate for the benefit of their site, not for Google's (or MSN or Yahoo et. al.). They are saying that the ad revenue for viewing headlines on the site should go to them, not to Google. That the terms of viewing the site should be set by themselves. That they own copyright where they say they do. And, since they originate the content, I agree with them.
No, that wasn't a serious go at you but it was an attempt at world-weary commentary. I was around when Linux was launched. I was using Minix on an Atari ST before that happened. I was using Linux as a primary desktop in 1994. And once upon a time I had code in the standard Linux driver set (a Compaq SCSI controller, I believe long since factored out. At least, I hope so).
So. The answer is....yes. Geeks eat their young. I remember at the time knowing very vaguely about BSD, but 'knowing' equally that I should steer well clear of it due to ongoing and the future potential for lawsuits. As it turned out, this was utter junk - FUD so to speak. In fact, looking back at things with the artificial benefit of perfect hindsight I would have gone the BSD route rather than the Linux one. I still read amusing little pro-Linux rants that are actually just pro-open source Unix userland, not pro-Linux as they believe themselves to be. Don't get me wrong, there are definite differentiators between BSD, Linux, running GNU tools on Solaris, OS X etc. but that's not the point I'm interested in here. For this discussion, I'm interested in seeing many of Unix per-se's benefits being described as Linux benefits when they are nothing of the sort. Personally I feel a good deal of progress could have been made just following the BSD route instead of going the Linux kernel route. LGPL does seem to encompass the majority of the BSD way, so I find I have agree with the statements made in this article.
I have every VHS and DVD version of the movies and can usually point out most of the differences. But, I am getting better.... I no longer live in my parents basement:)
"That's good. You've taken your first step into a larger world"
Globalization is a reality. If you are still thinking that your local country offers the only market for your job, you are probably watching too much TV and consuming too much sugary fat, and in my opinion not travelling often, nor far and wide, enough.
Or alternatively, perhaps your job isn't the most important thing in your life. Perhaps you have kids going through school, perhaps you have friends you want to stay in touch with, perhaps your dear old mum needs a hand...
This is a depressing thread to read - there seems to be a clear majority that think just because it's not immediately useful to them, it must be a waste of time and pointless.
Until recently, I was a FreeDOS user. I used it on a P100 laptop to connect to my Commodore 64 (the version of the connector cable I have requires a single-tasking OS). Is that a mainstream use? No, not by a long chalk. Is it a useful use? Well yeah, to me it definitely was. The C64 is turned on once in a blue moon to play the odd game or two, and the P100 (saved from a bin) let me transfer disk images off the net directly onto a 1541 floppy disk.
So that's one oddball use. Next up, two more mainstream uses. BIOS flash utilities? I'm on the Mac now, but I remember the majority of BIOS flashes being either required or recommended to be run from DOS. Then from reading some of the more useful posts to this thread I also learn it's in use within the embedded world. So that's two fairly mainstream activities where this helps.
And the final reason? Well....it's obvious. Just 'cos. That's a good and valid reason in itself, and the lack of appreciation for that thought within this thread is what's disappointing me. Just because someone hasn't spoon-fed you something shiny, it doesn't mean that the entire world disregards it. My congratulations to FreeDOS and the the positive posters, and once again - yaah boo sucks to the negative ones.
It's extremely odd. As a programmer, distractions make me more productive, so long as they aren't actually interruptions. In Deep Hack Mode (TM), I won't be interrupted at all, so I simply won't check my mail. But most of the time, going to lunch, going for a walk, putting my feet up on my desk, or reading Slashdot will make me more productive, because it makes me think about something else.
I understand what you're saying and agree with it entirely. I think the key for me is that the kind of distractions you're speaking about are my distractions, not distractions imposed on me from somewhere else. The first kind help me along, the second kind jar me out of my thoughts.
I've massively cut back my response times to email, and deliberately so. Maybe five times a day I'll go through and reply now, sometimes maybe three.
Instant messenger I tend to reply to...well...instantly. Even if it's only to say that I'll have to answer in a couple of minutes. Your best bet for getting hold of me is a phone message. Why will sound familiar to many. I was getting so distracted and interrupted by email that I turned off any notification that I'd received any. From then on, I found I was able to concentrate on my work a lot more.
What's been interesting is that people I regularly correspond with have noticed this and fitted in with the pattern fine. I don't think they've consciously done it - they've clearly learned how to get hold of me if they need to, and what kind of response times to expect otherwise. It's beneficial all round really - the key is that the two methods of getting hold of me quickly are interactive methods - phone or IM. This cuts down misunderstandings, stops people wasting time formulating the perfect email to send me because they can just get through it in a normal conversational style, adds informality as we're able to use a spot of humour whilst discussing whatever needs doing...it's just better. IRC aside, flamewars are more common in email than in IM. And phone-based flamewars? When's the last time you ever heard of one, if ever? Personal contact always mitigates such behaviour.
So email is no longer a quick way to reach me at work. It's a conscious choice, and it's worked out absolutely fine.
I am so out of touch with the funny bone in this type of humor. I had to google for Ricky Gervais to find out who he is. I know some of my friends love the Office but... I tried to watch that "Microsoft video" and wanted to snooze after five minutes. The IBM one was even faster.
Ricky Gervaise is brilliant at what he does, but I'm in the same position as you and can't really appreciate it. Slightly different reason though - I find comedy that makes me squirm hard to watch. The Office (UK, I've never seen the US version) is very cutting and accurate for so many places. Trouble is, being in those places makes me want to squirm and so seeing it reproduced on screen also makes me want to squirm.
Thanks for that. Finally managed to make contact - my wife has been driving round with three kids completely oblivious to all of it. She did go to Morrisons too, just didn't know what was happening. She'd forgotten her mobile - bet she won't be doing that again in a hurry.
Thanks - didn't know about that one. But the BBC are specifically reporting evacuations and arrests in High Wycombe. More here. If you know the area, they've also shut down Handy Cross roundabout too - for those that don't know the area this is the main way into High Wycombe off the M40 motorway. Also the main way into Marlow too, though you can come in from the other side by using the M4 motorway.
The news is saying that houses in High Wycombe are being evacuated. My family are in Marlow Bottom, on the other side of the hill (about a mile/two miles for those not familiar with the area).They're also travelling around in the car at the moment, including probably heading for a Morrisons supermarket in High Wycombe.
Does anyone here have more information about what's going on in High Wycombe please?
It's the developer's conference, not the consumer "Let's show shiny things" conference or special event. Some of the new stuff would be interesting only to devs, and I imagine some new Apple toys were deliberately not presented in this forum.
OK - here's a comparison. App is a multi-threaded market data-driven app. Server-side, so no GUI. Uses around a gig to gig-and-a-half of RAM. Idea is to read in market data, process and response to it in sub-millisecond time.
"Stop the world" garbage collection for this app usually takes less than 13ms. And it very rarely occurs - you can code appropriately for a garbage collector too, and minimise it ever reaching this level. Usual GC times is between
There isn't a human alive that could interact with a GUI in 13ms. So no, you need sub-millisecond performance 'every time you need to interact with a user' is not actually true.
I really do feel that manual memory management in most apps is now redundant. i fully accept its need in some cases an indeed I've advocated 'regressing' an app at work, which was ported from C to Java, back into C again to use manual memory management for performance. But that app's an exception - sub-millisecond performance is required. How many day to day apps need that?
I can feel myself waiting a few months, then ordering an updated Objective C coding book to pick this language up now.
On top of that, there's only a trackpad (the D820 has both a trackpad and a 'nipple', and I like to have both), and with only a single button (I can't fathom why Apple continue with this brain-dead design)
On a MacBook Pro's single button, you can right click and perform a scrollwheel-like operation. Two-fingers and click = right click, two fingers and drag = scrollwheel. Works in Windows via Parallels too, though I haven't tried BootCamp so don't know.
Speak for yourself - it's 14.5 for this part of the world (UK). That's "fourteen point five". None of your continental commas here if you please, leave it for the thousands where God quite clearly intended it to go.:-)
Cheers,
Ian
The only result of this will be fear as it will surely predict doom and gloom. Like the submitter said, my weatherman can't even predict tomorrow's weather, muchless 30 years.
So that's it then, we just stop trying?
I'm rather presuming this model will be constantly revised with new data and new techniques, and that it's predictions will be altered accordingly. Something has to try and do this, then the state of the art can be improved by building on its strengths and working on its weaknesses.
Slashdot Mirror
It's hardly a surprise to learn that deliberately publicised information is being found and read - that's the whole point, surely? I remember reading a comment from the BBC News web team a while ago saying pretty much the same thing - people were saying it was scary when the Beeb team replied to them. Er...why?
Cheers,
Ian
If they disagree with how Google works, they should block googlebot, or at minimum, create a robots.txt
No, that's missing the point of what I said again. I said - since when did the world work for Google? I don't want to do extra work because someone is misusing my copyright, I want them to abide by the copyright in the first place.
For just appearing in google.com's search index I have little sympathy for the sites' case. But look at Google News and tell me it isn't becoming a publisher. At the very least it needs to decide which articles should feature more prominently, whether by machine or not. I'm sticking by my normal privacy principles over this - opt in, not opt out.
Cheers,
Ian
All these points of view are predicated on the fact the content providers should be grateful to have their content placed in a search engine. Well, these people have explicitly said that they are not grateful, and that they don't want it to happen.
Any 'content holder' that whines needs the same thing done to them with no option for reindexing without paying enough to bleed them white
What sort of attitude is that? You see, that's exactly why people get fed up. A search engine could not exist as a commercial entity if there were nothing to search. Original content needs to be generated somewhere, and these people are saying that content is generate for the benefit of their site, not for Google's (or MSN or Yahoo et. al.). They are saying that the ad revenue for viewing headlines on the site should go to them, not to Google. That the terms of viewing the site should be set by themselves. That they own copyright where they say they do. And, since they originate the content, I agree with them.
Cheers,
Ian
The article mentions that this is a Manoi robot. A spot of online searching leads me to this MPEG video.
Cheers,
Ian
No, that wasn't a serious go at you but it was an attempt at world-weary commentary. I was around when Linux was launched. I was using Minix on an Atari ST before that happened. I was using Linux as a primary desktop in 1994. And once upon a time I had code in the standard Linux driver set (a Compaq SCSI controller, I believe long since factored out. At least, I hope so).
So. The answer is....yes. Geeks eat their young. I remember at the time knowing very vaguely about BSD, but 'knowing' equally that I should steer well clear of it due to ongoing and the future potential for lawsuits. As it turned out, this was utter junk - FUD so to speak. In fact, looking back at things with the artificial benefit of perfect hindsight I would have gone the BSD route rather than the Linux one. I still read amusing little pro-Linux rants that are actually just pro-open source Unix userland, not pro-Linux as they believe themselves to be. Don't get me wrong, there are definite differentiators between BSD, Linux, running GNU tools on Solaris, OS X etc. but that's not the point I'm interested in here. For this discussion, I'm interested in seeing many of Unix per-se's benefits being described as Linux benefits when they are nothing of the sort. Personally I feel a good deal of progress could have been made just following the BSD route instead of going the Linux kernel route. LGPL does seem to encompass the majority of the BSD way, so I find I have agree with the statements made in this article.
Cheers,
Ian
I have every VHS and DVD version of the movies and can usually point out most of the differences. But, I am getting better.... I no longer live in my parents basement :)
"That's good. You've taken your first step into a larger world"
Cheers, Ian
Or alternatively, perhaps your job isn't the most important thing in your life. Perhaps you have kids going through school, perhaps you have friends you want to stay in touch with, perhaps your dear old mum needs a hand...
Cheers,
Ian
This is a depressing thread to read - there seems to be a clear majority that think just because it's not immediately useful to them, it must be a waste of time and pointless.
Until recently, I was a FreeDOS user. I used it on a P100 laptop to connect to my Commodore 64 (the version of the connector cable I have requires a single-tasking OS). Is that a mainstream use? No, not by a long chalk. Is it a useful use? Well yeah, to me it definitely was. The C64 is turned on once in a blue moon to play the odd game or two, and the P100 (saved from a bin) let me transfer disk images off the net directly onto a 1541 floppy disk.
So that's one oddball use. Next up, two more mainstream uses. BIOS flash utilities? I'm on the Mac now, but I remember the majority of BIOS flashes being either required or recommended to be run from DOS. Then from reading some of the more useful posts to this thread I also learn it's in use within the embedded world. So that's two fairly mainstream activities where this helps.
And the final reason? Well....it's obvious. Just 'cos. That's a good and valid reason in itself, and the lack of appreciation for that thought within this thread is what's disappointing me. Just because someone hasn't spoon-fed you something shiny, it doesn't mean that the entire world disregards it. My congratulations to FreeDOS and the the positive posters, and once again - yaah boo sucks to the negative ones.
Cheers,
Ian
It's extremely odd. As a programmer, distractions make me more productive, so long as they aren't actually interruptions. In Deep Hack Mode (TM), I won't be interrupted at all, so I simply won't check my mail. But most of the time, going to lunch, going for a walk, putting my feet up on my desk, or reading Slashdot will make me more productive, because it makes me think about something else.
I understand what you're saying and agree with it entirely. I think the key for me is that the kind of distractions you're speaking about are my distractions, not distractions imposed on me from somewhere else. The first kind help me along, the second kind jar me out of my thoughts.
Cheers,
Ian
I've massively cut back my response times to email, and deliberately so. Maybe five times a day I'll go through and reply now, sometimes maybe three.
Instant messenger I tend to reply to...well...instantly. Even if it's only to say that I'll have to answer in a couple of minutes. Your best bet for getting hold of me is a phone message. Why will sound familiar to many. I was getting so distracted and interrupted by email that I turned off any notification that I'd received any. From then on, I found I was able to concentrate on my work a lot more.
What's been interesting is that people I regularly correspond with have noticed this and fitted in with the pattern fine. I don't think they've consciously done it - they've clearly learned how to get hold of me if they need to, and what kind of response times to expect otherwise. It's beneficial all round really - the key is that the two methods of getting hold of me quickly are interactive methods - phone or IM. This cuts down misunderstandings, stops people wasting time formulating the perfect email to send me because they can just get through it in a normal conversational style, adds informality as we're able to use a spot of humour whilst discussing whatever needs doing...it's just better. IRC aside, flamewars are more common in email than in IM. And phone-based flamewars? When's the last time you ever heard of one, if ever? Personal contact always mitigates such behaviour.
So email is no longer a quick way to reach me at work. It's a conscious choice, and it's worked out absolutely fine.
Cheers,
Ian
I am so out of touch with the funny bone in this type of humor. I had to google for Ricky Gervais to find out who he is. I know some of my friends love the Office but... I tried to watch that "Microsoft video" and wanted to snooze after five minutes. The IBM one was even faster.
Ricky Gervaise is brilliant at what he does, but I'm in the same position as you and can't really appreciate it. Slightly different reason though - I find comedy that makes me squirm hard to watch. The Office (UK, I've never seen the US version) is very cutting and accurate for so many places. Trouble is, being in those places makes me want to squirm and so seeing it reproduced on screen also makes me want to squirm.
Cheers,
Ian
Err...where's his computer located?
Cheers,
Ian
Cheers,
Ian
Cheers,
Ian
Cheers,
Ian
Cheers,
Ian
Cheers,
Ian
Does anyone here have more information about what's going on in High Wycombe please?
Cheers,
Ian
Cheers,
Ian
Cheers,
Ian
"Stop the world" garbage collection for this app usually takes less than 13ms. And it very rarely occurs - you can code appropriately for a garbage collector too, and minimise it ever reaching this level. Usual GC times is between There isn't a human alive that could interact with a GUI in 13ms. So no, you need sub-millisecond performance 'every time you need to interact with a user' is not actually true.
Cheers,
Ian
I really do feel that manual memory management in most apps is now redundant. i fully accept its need in some cases an indeed I've advocated 'regressing' an app at work, which was ported from C to Java, back into C again to use manual memory management for performance. But that app's an exception - sub-millisecond performance is required. How many day to day apps need that?
I can feel myself waiting a few months, then ordering an updated Objective C coding book to pick this language up now.
Cheers,
Ian
On a MacBook Pro's single button, you can right click and perform a scrollwheel-like operation. Two-fingers and click = right click, two fingers and drag = scrollwheel. Works in Windows via Parallels too, though I haven't tried BootCamp so don't know.
Cheers, Ian
Speak for yourself - it's 14.5 for this part of the world (UK). That's "fourteen point five". None of your continental commas here if you please, leave it for the thousands where God quite clearly intended it to go. :-)
Cheers,
Ian
So that's it then, we just stop trying?
I'm rather presuming this model will be constantly revised with new data and new techniques, and that it's predictions will be altered accordingly. Something has to try and do this, then the state of the art can be improved by building on its strengths and working on its weaknesses.
Cheers,
Ian