1. even though the same code may be in use, the implementation within each distinct site may very well vary and possibly enough to render an apples: apples comparison irrelevant.
2. agreed, but this is again (IMHO) an implementation issue. all of which is to say (unclear from your response whether you're conceding this point or not): results from site to site cannot be compared apples: apples fashion, which (it would seem to me) would be the real objective of any such system, no?
3. i've worked with databases. that doesn't scare me. what does scare me is the probability of reconciliation amongst the various servers. let me explain: perhaps i'm not being clear.
let's say that 25 site operators put their heads together and thrash out a standard whereby this data is maintained in a nice, decentralized fashion. so who owns that standard? and at some point, wouldn't micro$oft or someone else like them come along and "embrace & extend" this new standard, thereby leading to the balkanization i've described? perhaps i'm not understanding your point correctly, which i confess is entirely possible, as i'm insufficiently caffeinated?
while that's an interesting concept, it seems impracticable, for several reasons:
1. most sites don't use a comparable method to rate karma. the slashdot staff describes how the karma system was homegrown in the article, and i'm sure that's true of each site's analogous feature.
2. even if these systems used some kind of standard rating system for users, i strongly suspect that user behavior and reliability might vary from site to site. f'rex: i'm not really an IT guy, which shows in the comments i make. however, i'm a serious movie fiend. accordingly, users here should not necessarily take my thoughts on technology matters, but i can speak w/ much greater authority on IMDB.
3. let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all the various sites whose user opinions are well regarded (slashdot, et al) agree to develop a method such as you propose. there would still be 2 separate and mutually exclusive methods: either a highly decentralized method (likely to be the favored tool here) or a highly centralized method. naturally, the latter would be susceptible to exploits, etc., and the interested site operators would therefore split into (at least) 2 camps, thereby rendering the universal solution impossible, IMHO.
well, bush the elder should, in hindsight, have finished the job back in '92--i think he misjudged the amount of support he had then. however, hindsight is 20/20 and all that.
and utlimately, it's irrelevant: the current bush administration spent a lot of last year talking about weapons of mass destruction, clearly building the idea to develop some kind of consensus amongst the public. it's been pretty effective, as some of the poll numbers would indicate.
so i stand by my original statement: dubya got himself into this predicament.
o, come off it. in this economy, you wanna chastise people for who their employer is? have you missed the fact that every third post here over i don't know how long seems to note that the poster is unemployed?
your opinion, you're entitled to it, but i have to wonder if you've thought this through...
what i think is really interesting here is what will happen to the new functionality.
presumably, it'll be part of MSN. so who are they after, really?
the tech savvy don't use MSN. the tech ignorant use AOL. so who are they going for? it makes me nervous when ballmer & co set their sites on something and i don't understand the reasoning behind it.
it can't just be about longhorn search capabilities, can it?
i seem to recall a few speeches in which he claimed there were WMDs hanging out in iraq. *he* built WMDs as the pretext for this war. *he* raised the expectations of the world (not just american) public about this.
he got himself into it, he's gonna have to get himself out of it.
while that's technically true, what's the likelihood any firm's IT group won't simply say, "jeez, maintain 2 standards for internal vs. external? screw it; log it all!"
beyond that, however, there are periodically sales/trades made internally: 2 large business units in different functions might legitimately be doing business together. then what?
with giants like morgan stanley not meeting its numbers for the quarter, i don't think it's realistic that their IT departments are going to have the time and/or resources to deploy a two-pronged solution.
remember that all company-owned equipment (hardware, software and other data alike) are just that: company-owned equipment. you do it or say it on company time, using company equipment, and especially if it's in written form, it can and will become evidence in any legal proceeding.
do you remember a few years ago when analysts (e.g., mary meeker) that were bullish on IT were later sued after the bubble burst? part of the evidence produced by NY AG spitzer's discovery process were old e-mails in which analysts panned a stock privately while retaining a buy rating on it.
now IIRC, those suits were settled, but don't think this had zero impact on financial services IT policies.
as someone who's had dealings with reuters and used some of their apps:
1. this isn't a discrete app; it's part of the reuters app suite. it's bundled w/ any of their products, which generally start at $500/month. 2. reuters does nothing "quickly".
having previously worked in a financial services company, i can tell you that most of them will already disallow installation of non-certified apps on the desktop. and of course, entire departments within IT exist to certify apps on the approved firm builds. indeed, at my previous employer, users are not admins on their own PCs and hence cannot install anything.
i cannot imagine the CTO saying, "well, IM is an important communications medium for the employee staff with one another so let's put together a team to address the scripting issues. we need to include the resulting gigs of data in our backup processes as well."
no, i think the liability issues will simply result in IM going away permanently within financial services firms.
heck, when i was working there, i wasn't even able to post comments to slashdot. but then again, we were obliged to run netscape as our browser and e-mail client: outlook was verboten.
frankly, i don't think it's insightful either, but hey, i didn't moderate it...
so are you arguing that the tiny fraction of people who are marginal enough to be swayed by something they read on the internet is going to in any meaningful way impact a business's sales? b/c i gotta say, someone who's prone to being influenced that easily wasn't exactly a loyal customer to start.
1. no, it is pointless *now*. it may make perfect sense in light of something we see in ROTK although i can't blame you for not holding your breath...
2. it most certainly does explain it: he needs faramir to appear antagonistic: knowing that he's boromir's brother already makes him suspicious to your average moviegoer unfamiliar w/ the books. faramir does not come off that way as written however, so in order to make his (and symbolically, boromir and hence humanity's) redemption work, there's bound to be a difference.
3. to be honest, i don't remember much of the helm's deep battle in the book, apart from remembering that it seemed painfully dull to me. however, i do know that the audience has no particular reason to like the elves: they're lame ducks (crossing the sea) and despite all their power (aren't they all wizards in their own right?), they're going to abandon humanity (and the hobbits, and the dwarves) to sauron. sounds like a bunch of self-involved jerks. and if you haven't read the books, that's all you know of them, beyond bilbo's fondness for 'em...
4. ah, that. well, if you're on patrol in your lands, which are constantly being crossed by dark forces looking to join up w/ sauron, i too would hide somewhere pretty safe and make sure it's a good hideout. but i get the feeling you mean something else.
of course, we could instead be discussing the correctness of the balrog having wings...
killing aragorn: OK, i'm a little puzzled by that decision myself, to be honest. it seems like its sole purpose was for the audience to see that the relationship w/ arwen was fated not to be and is now legitimately able to become involved w/ eowyn. this could have been done otherwise (e.g., flashback or something), i agree. and it sorta cheapens gandalf's descent into the pit.
i am hoping very much that the reason for this will become apparent in ROTK. i'll have to concede this one...for now.
faramir: the men of gondor are clearly suspicious if we consider what happens w/ denethor and how boromir's lust for the ring accentuated his natural suspicion. faramir is in the middle of what he is essentially a warzone, and suddenly, these halflings show up w/ gollum in his country. frodo is clearly not giving him the full story. gollum is clearly bad news, and of course the ring is calling to him, just as it called to his brother. i think his suspiciousness and general "being a jerk-ness" is perfectly justified there. it also lowers the audience's expectations for faramir, which of course he will then go on to exceed in ROTK.
the army of elves: tolkien clearly doesn't want the wizards to be shaping the political reality, so when gandalf shows up, even he shouldn't be able to turn the tide of saruman's orcs. therefore, something else needs to happen there. the dwarves, as has been established, care nothing for other people, per elrond. other humans are too caught up in what they're doing, which only leaves the elves to pick up that slack.
the diverting the ring thing, i'm not sure i know what you're talking about, to be honest. can you clarify?
as i said elsewhere a few days ago, you cannot possibly stuff the entirety of the 3 books onto the big screen: there's far too much.
some stuff was necessarily dropped (bombadil, most poetry, etc.) whereas others were enhanced to make the characters a little deeper: e.g., building up arwen and the relationship b/n her and aragorn clearly is intended to convey the relatively hamlet-esque quality jackson is accentuating in aragorn.
those changes were highly relevant and with purpose. i'm mighty curious what changes you feel are irrelevant and pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
i hear "PPC" and can't help thinking, "10 heat, 10 damage, min range: 3 hexes"...
of course, given the likely bloat factor, 10 heat may not be entirely irrelevant here...
ed
3025 forever!
fireboy:
you make some good points. i have a few thoughts:
1. even though the same code may be in use, the implementation within each distinct site may very well vary and possibly enough to render an apples: apples comparison irrelevant.
2. agreed, but this is again (IMHO) an implementation issue. all of which is to say (unclear from your response whether you're conceding this point or not): results from site to site cannot be compared apples: apples fashion, which (it would seem to me) would be the real objective of any such system, no?
3. i've worked with databases. that doesn't scare me. what does scare me is the probability of reconciliation amongst the various servers. let me explain: perhaps i'm not being clear.
let's say that 25 site operators put their heads together and thrash out a standard whereby this data is maintained in a nice, decentralized fashion. so who owns that standard? and at some point, wouldn't micro$oft or someone else like them come along and "embrace & extend" this new standard, thereby leading to the balkanization i've described? perhaps i'm not understanding your point correctly, which i confess is entirely possible, as i'm insufficiently caffeinated?
ed
while that's an interesting concept, it seems impracticable, for several reasons:
1. most sites don't use a comparable method to rate karma. the slashdot staff describes how the karma system was homegrown in the article, and i'm sure that's true of each site's analogous feature.
2. even if these systems used some kind of standard rating system for users, i strongly suspect that user behavior and reliability might vary from site to site. f'rex: i'm not really an IT guy, which shows in the comments i make. however, i'm a serious movie fiend. accordingly, users here should not necessarily take my thoughts on technology matters, but i can speak w/ much greater authority on IMDB.
3. let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all the various sites whose user opinions are well regarded (slashdot, et al) agree to develop a method such as you propose. there would still be 2 separate and mutually exclusive methods: either a highly decentralized method (likely to be the favored tool here) or a highly centralized method. naturally, the latter would be susceptible to exploits, etc., and the interested site operators would therefore split into (at least) 2 camps, thereby rendering the universal solution impossible, IMHO.
ed
someone needs to mod the parent up. it's way informative.
ed
that turboing article is extraordinarily valuable.
ed
"genetic combination of pamela anderson, natalie portman and lara croft (only with bigger boobs)..."
:>
bigger than pamela anderson? what are you looking for, bowling balls?
ed
well, bush the elder should, in hindsight, have finished the job back in '92--i think he misjudged the amount of support he had then. however, hindsight is 20/20 and all that.
and utlimately, it's irrelevant: the current bush administration spent a lot of last year talking about weapons of mass destruction, clearly building the idea to develop some kind of consensus amongst the public. it's been pretty effective, as some of the poll numbers would indicate.
so i stand by my original statement: dubya got himself into this predicament.
ed
o, come off it. in this economy, you wanna chastise people for who their employer is? have you missed the fact that every third post here over i don't know how long seems to note that the poster is unemployed?
your opinion, you're entitled to it, but i have to wonder if you've thought this through...
ed
what i think is really interesting here is what will happen to the new functionality.
presumably, it'll be part of MSN. so who are they after, really?
the tech savvy don't use MSN. the tech ignorant use AOL. so who are they going for? it makes me nervous when ballmer & co set their sites on something and i don't understand the reasoning behind it.
it can't just be about longhorn search capabilities, can it?
ed
i seem to recall a few speeches in which he claimed there were WMDs hanging out in iraq. *he* built WMDs as the pretext for this war. *he* raised the expectations of the world (not just american) public about this.
he got himself into it, he's gonna have to get himself out of it.
ed
while that's technically true, what's the likelihood any firm's IT group won't simply say, "jeez, maintain 2 standards for internal vs. external? screw it; log it all!"
beyond that, however, there are periodically sales/trades made internally: 2 large business units in different functions might legitimately be doing business together. then what?
with giants like morgan stanley not meeting its numbers for the quarter, i don't think it's realistic that their IT departments are going to have the time and/or resources to deploy a two-pronged solution.
ed
caveat: IANAL.
remember that all company-owned equipment (hardware, software and other data alike) are just that: company-owned equipment. you do it or say it on company time, using company equipment, and especially if it's in written form, it can and will become evidence in any legal proceeding.
do you remember a few years ago when analysts (e.g., mary meeker) that were bullish on IT were later sued after the bubble burst? part of the evidence produced by NY AG spitzer's discovery process were old e-mails in which analysts panned a stock privately while retaining a buy rating on it.
now IIRC, those suits were settled, but don't think this had zero impact on financial services IT policies.
this is simply an extension of the same.
ed
as someone who's had dealings with reuters and used some of their apps:
1. this isn't a discrete app; it's part of the reuters app suite. it's bundled w/ any of their products, which generally start at $500/month.
2. reuters does nothing "quickly".
ed
having previously worked in a financial services company, i can tell you that most of them will already disallow installation of non-certified apps on the desktop. and of course, entire departments within IT exist to certify apps on the approved firm builds. indeed, at my previous employer, users are not admins on their own PCs and hence cannot install anything.
i cannot imagine the CTO saying, "well, IM is an important communications medium for the employee staff with one another so let's put together a team to address the scripting issues. we need to include the resulting gigs of data in our backup processes as well."
no, i think the liability issues will simply result in IM going away permanently within financial services firms.
heck, when i was working there, i wasn't even able to post comments to slashdot. but then again, we were obliged to run netscape as our browser and e-mail client: outlook was verboten.
[insert obligatory outlook joke here.]
ed
perhaps it's a result of someone trying to imagine a beowulf cluster of them?
ed
by any chance, was that company a major financial services player? i may have been employed by the same folks.
ed
there's always the one guy who says he'll refuse, but then does cave (for whatever reason). guess who becomes the next PHB?
(no, not player's handbook)
ed
and here i was thinking "jeez, that's so 1984..."
sadly, while i'm trying to grasp this, my brain keeps imploding. i have the same problem trying to grasp this as i do tesseracts...
[sigh]
one of these days, i'm gonna have to look for "quantum computing for dummies" or something...
ed
frankly, i don't think it's insightful either, but hey, i didn't moderate it...
so are you arguing that the tiny fraction of people who are marginal enough to be swayed by something they read on the internet is going to in any meaningful way impact a business's sales? b/c i gotta say, someone who's prone to being influenced that easily wasn't exactly a loyal customer to start.
ed
stupid question, but isn't quantum computing predicated on a 3 state model analogous to the 3 nucleotide codons? and wouldn't this be relevant?
ed
1. no, it is pointless *now*. it may make perfect sense in light of something we see in ROTK although i can't blame you for not holding your breath...
2. it most certainly does explain it: he needs faramir to appear antagonistic: knowing that he's boromir's brother already makes him suspicious to your average moviegoer unfamiliar w/ the books. faramir does not come off that way as written however, so in order to make his (and symbolically, boromir and hence humanity's) redemption work, there's bound to be a difference.
3. to be honest, i don't remember much of the helm's deep battle in the book, apart from remembering that it seemed painfully dull to me. however, i do know that the audience has no particular reason to like the elves: they're lame ducks (crossing the sea) and despite all their power (aren't they all wizards in their own right?), they're going to abandon humanity (and the hobbits, and the dwarves) to sauron. sounds like a bunch of self-involved jerks. and if you haven't read the books, that's all you know of them, beyond bilbo's fondness for 'em...
4. ah, that. well, if you're on patrol in your lands, which are constantly being crossed by dark forces looking to join up w/ sauron, i too would hide somewhere pretty safe and make sure it's a good hideout. but i get the feeling you mean something else.
of course, we could instead be discussing the correctness of the balrog having wings...
ed
um, aren't you assuming a certain, potentially unwarranted, faith in the wisdom of the judge and/or attorneys?
i'm just saying...
killing aragorn: OK, i'm a little puzzled by that decision myself, to be honest. it seems like its sole purpose was for the audience to see that the relationship w/ arwen was fated not to be and is now legitimately able to become involved w/ eowyn. this could have been done otherwise (e.g., flashback or something), i agree. and it sorta cheapens gandalf's descent into the pit.
i am hoping very much that the reason for this will become apparent in ROTK. i'll have to concede this one...for now.
faramir: the men of gondor are clearly suspicious if we consider what happens w/ denethor and how boromir's lust for the ring accentuated his natural suspicion. faramir is in the middle of what he is essentially a warzone, and suddenly, these halflings show up w/ gollum in his country. frodo is clearly not giving him the full story. gollum is clearly bad news, and of course the ring is calling to him, just as it called to his brother. i think his suspiciousness and general "being a jerk-ness" is perfectly justified there. it also lowers the audience's expectations for faramir, which of course he will then go on to exceed in ROTK.
the army of elves: tolkien clearly doesn't want the wizards to be shaping the political reality, so when gandalf shows up, even he shouldn't be able to turn the tide of saruman's orcs. therefore, something else needs to happen there. the dwarves, as has been established, care nothing for other people, per elrond. other humans are too caught up in what they're doing, which only leaves the elves to pick up that slack.
the diverting the ring thing, i'm not sure i know what you're talking about, to be honest. can you clarify?
ed
as i said elsewhere a few days ago, you cannot possibly stuff the entirety of the 3 books onto the big screen: there's far too much.
some stuff was necessarily dropped (bombadil, most poetry, etc.) whereas others were enhanced to make the characters a little deeper: e.g., building up arwen and the relationship b/n her and aragorn clearly is intended to convey the relatively hamlet-esque quality jackson is accentuating in aragorn.
those changes were highly relevant and with purpose. i'm mighty curious what changes you feel are irrelevant and pointless.
ed