Their not tight lipped about their criteria, they're tight lipped about the exact algorithm involved (understandably so), but it still doesn't explain how they rank #1 for spreadsheet. Seriously.
Remember when Google released 'Scholar'? The very next day (this is something other people critical of Google adwords like to mention) somehow, with very few links to this new product, the word 'scholar' had Google showing up as #1.
Yeah, sure they play fair;)... It's a fair coincidence that ALL of these words show Google as #1?
intranet, spreadsheet, documents, calendar, word processor, email, video, instant messenger, blog, photo sharing, online groups, maps, start page, restaurants, dining, and books
Some? Yes, all? No way. Not spreadsheet, not documents, certainly shouldn't be for e-mail or instant messenger.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that Google is claiming to use the exact same criteria for their pages as for pages outside of Google. Now, considering that, tell me how Google should come up #1 for the word 'spreadsheet'?;)
I haven't seen anybody say Google should discriminate against itself, people are saying Google should give Google priority over others just because they're 'Google' products.
I certainly didn't mean to bag on Google Earth, just that people (myself included) have been doing real-time GIS applications (for CA Unicenter as an example) which streamed off of USGS CDs and DVDs in the datacenter since 1997. The wow factor isn't the application, it's the data itself. That's what makes Google's client software seem magical. The front end stuff that most of the teams work on (as far as we outsiders can see) is nothing special. I'm not saying it's bad in any way, but it certainly isn't what I'd expect from the purportedly assembled brainpower there. I, as an example, would expect Google to have had a decent natural language processing system in place (years ago) and for them to be a leader in the real-time translation of web pages and/or thin/thick clients. I think that if Google didn't bind itself so tightly to the browser, it could turn out some truly excellent software; however, nothing much seems to come out of Google except browser based client apps and the back-end products, the same things it has been doing for years. It just seems like a narrow usage of talent.
There must be several thousand 'very talented' engineers working there, right? Why isn't more coming out? Why haven't you guys solved poverty (presuming a solution exists...?);) J/K.
...people who have no interest in working for Google. Seriously.
I, for some reason (probably related to how horrible I find things like JSP), do not like web development at all (with the exception of web services that my good old fashioned thin/fat client can consume) when compared to C/C++, but that's just me. Some people love that environment; however, the press seems to think that everyone with a brain wants to join Google.
I presume that there are quite a few engineers who wouldn't be tempted by Google (except possibly from the remunerative aspects of the possibility.)
Even the stuff that Google produces, while useful and can make things easier for people, strikes me as hugely dull... Google Earth is slightly interesting, but to be honest, it's a simple software problem just backed up by the enormous hardware capabilities of Google for serving. It still doesn't do much at all, it's just that nobody else does it really, not for free.
...to the leagues, team names, and players EVERY YEAR so that nobody else can use the player's actual name or the team's name in their games is maybe one of the reasons their games cost so much? Hmmmm?;)
..this one (congratulations by the way:) being a daddy is awesome), your choices will be limited because maternity coverage is sparse and expensive. I recommend that you contact *several* health insurance agents (the ones who shop around for insurance for you like they would for a company) and ask them all to look for the plan you need. This at least will save you from having to figure out which plans are out there, which ones cost what amounts, which ones cover these features, yadda ^ 3. I was doing this myself until very recently. It was expensive, but manageable.
Good luck with the little one:). Some advice there too;), (1)Prince Lionheart Bear (yes, stupid STUPID name, but it makes a womb-like/white noise sound and if the baby wakes up it starts again), (2)Aquarium rocker (trust me), and the greatest of all time (3)Motorized swing. I still open the toy closet once in a while to blow that bad boy a kiss.
...all you actually need. Good code comments are nice, and explicit variable naming (instead of lazy naming) are pluses as well.
"I have to implement feature , the requirements doc (if any) can be found at: A synopsis of the feature is: In order to satisfy those needs architecturally, I've decided to implement like because we want to avoid using because it prevents us from in the future..."
These docs are usually a page in a half for a complicated feature that has a potentially confusing architectural design.
The problem isn't in what you do up front or at the end, it is making a developer keep a document up to date. We're incredibly hard working about some aspects of our profession and ridiculously lazy about others;). Every feature that is implemented at my current company results in the developer(s) producing an informal design doc that is used by the architect (myself) to look out for gotchas/caveats/black-holes and offer helpful suggestions. This usually takes about 5-10 minutes in my office. After check-in and assigning the feature as 'complete' to QA for starting the test plan, there's another 5-10 minute review using the same document and asking "So what changed? What did we forget the first time? Ok, add that to the doc, send me a copy and I'll file it..." This way if, God forbid, a dev gets hit by a truck or just up and leaves we don't have to worry about having no idea what they've done and/or what they are doing at this time. Just one of many different ways to solve this problem that doesn't require exotic or strange practices.
Of course it would endanger the primary source of income for Microsoft. I can't believe you actually believe that there is zero risk to Microsoft's office division by making it possible for Linux/Windows hybrid business environments work better together, LOL. While I'd like that personally, if I was a Microsoft shareholder, I sure as hell would not.
It's not independent, it's an aggregate feeling of superiority engendered in the slashdot community as a whole where it is expected that you're anti-Microsoft or you're not here. Merely being here suggests a likely proclivity towards bashing Microsoft (it used to be worse here.) I come off as some kind of Microsoft apologist, when 80% of my career is *nix based and Java, because I believe in being objective. Do you think that article was objective?
No, I would suggest that you are reacting like a traditional slashdot reader and instantly ASSuming everything based upon an article by an author who, in the article if you've read it, admits that he doesn't actually know if this guy lobbied against the ODF. The guy is a, now, ex-employee of Micrsoft where he was in PR. He isn't an evangelist, he isn't a technologist with a personal interest in defeating the ODF, he's a guy who was involved with helping MA in the Clinton days and has now gone there. This article was just another anti-M$ spiel. Seriously, with his previous employer being Microsoft, don't you think his every move regarding ODF would be scrutinized? (Obviously from the posts here.) Any ODF proponents on that group? Don't know do you? You wouldn't care if there were in any case.
Not at all, you're confusing the independent opinion of a regular individual with the concept of an indepedent opinion being held by a member of that technology group. You're also making tons of suppositions regarding the ex-employee of Microsoft who, by the admission of the article's author, isn't even known to be a lobbyist against the ODF, the author suspects that he was. BTW, the guy's position at Microsoft was in PR, ergo, he says whatever he is told to say in order to receive his paycheck. Do you think a lot of ex-Microsoft employees are loyal to their company? We've recently seen several articles on Slashdot suggesting the alternative.
What does that have to do with claiming that because the guy is an ex-M$ employee he's not trustworthy or reliable?
As for the decision to use ODF or not, people like yourself seem to not understand how the free-market works. Microsoft is a PUBLIC COMPANY. Public companies have one primary task, to enrich their shareholders. That's why pensioners, mutual funds, school systems, city governments, et al., invest in them. Arguing that Microsoft should do something that endangers their company bedrock is "not rocket science" is extremely naive.
No offense but you're being a bit naive yourself, the guy is an EX-employee, who is *supposed* to have spoken on Microsoft's behalf (not to be confused with lobbying as a 3rd party) as part of his job while employeed by Microsoft. You seem to assume that ex-employees from Microsoft show some sort of retro-loyalty. He was a PR guy for Microsoft, who is now part of the MA government (his link to the MA government is from his pre-M$ days), and he's seen as disloyal.
Did any of you bother to check and see whether any of the other members were pro-ODF at all? Or had worked for companies or organizations that are pro-ODF? Doubtful. This is the typical slashdot reaction. The mere mention of Microsoft instantly instills FUD.
Are you intentionally avoiding my point? The poing, again, is that there ARE NO INDEPENDENT OPINIONS either here or in that group of people listed by MA to head the TAG. Think anyone on this website has an independent opinion? Not likely, the majority of people here are anti-Microsoft and you know it. Think anyone on that list is any more independent than anyone else? Hell, the former Microsoft guy knows that he'll be scrutinized very closely by the ODF zealots and probably end up being lambasted by anti-ODF zealots.
...ODF advocate? Seriously, do you really think you can find an unbiased IT aware technologist? Especially considering that this was posted on Slashdot? LOL. Either a technology savvy/aware person would be pro MS or pro-ODF, I'd be shocked to find one that wasn't aware of both of them. If you did, I'd suggest he's not up to the job in general.;)
You obviously have a difficult time reading. This 'poor guy' claim to have a work order, requested by me, from my cable company, because *we* reported to the cable company that *we* were planning on doing some digging. As stated above, he confirmed the name and address on the request for work and the 'requestor.' Now I didn't get to see it, but that's what the 'poor guy' stated. You really seem to come off as the idiot here... LOL.
The 'weird example' is to point out to you that just because you can be legally justified in doing something doesn't make it 'right.'
Potentially taking someone's life is a very serious act. Say he was casing my house. If I suspected that, I'd be all for beating his a**, but shooting him? Why? That's cowardly.
Slashdot Mirror
Their not tight lipped about their criteria, they're tight lipped about the exact algorithm involved (understandably so), but it still doesn't explain how they rank #1 for spreadsheet. Seriously.
;)... It's a fair coincidence that ALL of these words show Google as #1?
Remember when Google released 'Scholar'? The very next day (this is something other people critical of Google adwords like to mention) somehow, with very few links to this new product, the word 'scholar' had Google showing up as #1.
Yeah, sure they play fair
intranet, spreadsheet, documents, calendar, word processor, email, video, instant messenger, blog, photo sharing, online groups, maps, start page, restaurants, dining, and books
Some? Yes, all? No way. Not spreadsheet, not documents, certainly shouldn't be for e-mail or instant messenger.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that Google is claiming to use the exact same criteria for their pages as for pages outside of Google. Now, considering that, tell me how Google should come up #1 for the word 'spreadsheet'? ;)
I haven't seen anybody say Google should discriminate against itself, people are saying Google should give Google priority over others just because they're 'Google' products.
...'Google' as #1 then, don't you think?
...a precipitous drop in the amount of spam they have received.
I certainly didn't mean to bag on Google Earth, just that people (myself included) have been doing real-time GIS applications (for CA Unicenter as an example) which streamed off of USGS CDs and DVDs in the datacenter since 1997. The wow factor isn't the application, it's the data itself. That's what makes Google's client software seem magical. The front end stuff that most of the teams work on (as far as we outsiders can see) is nothing special. I'm not saying it's bad in any way, but it certainly isn't what I'd expect from the purportedly assembled brainpower there. I, as an example, would expect Google to have had a decent natural language processing system in place (years ago) and for them to be a leader in the real-time translation of web pages and/or thin/thick clients. I think that if Google didn't bind itself so tightly to the browser, it could turn out some truly excellent software; however, nothing much seems to come out of Google except browser based client apps and the back-end products, the same things it has been doing for years. It just seems like a narrow usage of talent.
;) J/K.
There must be several thousand 'very talented' engineers working there, right? Why isn't more coming out? Why haven't you guys solved poverty (presuming a solution exists...?)
...shortages of Cell processors because IBM's server (which utilize the chip) are selling like hotcakes...
...people who have no interest in working for Google. Seriously.
I, for some reason (probably related to how horrible I find things like JSP), do not like web development at all (with the exception of web services that my good old fashioned thin/fat client can consume) when compared to C/C++, but that's just me. Some people love that environment; however, the press seems to think that everyone with a brain wants to join Google.
I presume that there are quite a few engineers who wouldn't be tempted by Google (except possibly from the remunerative aspects of the possibility.)
Even the stuff that Google produces, while useful and can make things easier for people, strikes me as hugely dull... Google Earth is slightly interesting, but to be honest, it's a simple software problem just backed up by the enormous hardware capabilities of Google for serving. It still doesn't do much at all, it's just that nobody else does it really, not for free.
Anywho...
... anything resembling "Microsoft suggests that users 'not open or save Word files,' even from trusted sources."
It says to be extremely cautious.
FUD, from Slashdot? No way...
Well, I hear that just remembering how to build their source base takes weeks... ;)
...to the leagues, team names, and players EVERY YEAR so that nobody else can use the player's actual name or the team's name in their games is maybe one of the reasons their games cost so much? Hmmmm? ;)
...like CE, tabley, embedded XP, et cetera. A one-off for this laptop project is not beyond the realm of possibility.
..this one (congratulations by the way :) being a daddy is awesome), your choices will be limited because maternity coverage is sparse and expensive. I recommend that you contact *several* health insurance agents (the ones who shop around for insurance for you like they would for a company) and ask them all to look for the plan you need. This at least will save you from having to figure out which plans are out there, which ones cost what amounts, which ones cover these features, yadda ^ 3. I was doing this myself until very recently. It was expensive, but manageable.
:). Some advice there too ;), (1)Prince Lionheart Bear (yes, stupid STUPID name, but it makes a womb-like/white noise sound and if the baby wakes up it starts again), (2)Aquarium rocker (trust me), and the greatest of all time (3)Motorized swing. I still open the toy closet once in a while to blow that bad boy a kiss.
Good luck with the little one
...all you actually need. Good code comments are nice, and explicit variable naming (instead of lazy naming) are pluses as well.
;). Every feature that is implemented at my current company results in the developer(s) producing an informal design doc that is used by the architect (myself) to look out for gotchas/caveats/black-holes and offer helpful suggestions. This usually takes about 5-10 minutes in my office. After check-in and assigning the feature as 'complete' to QA for starting the test plan, there's another 5-10 minute review using the same document and asking "So what changed? What did we forget the first time? Ok, add that to the doc, send me a copy and I'll file it..." This way if, God forbid, a dev gets hit by a truck or just up and leaves we don't have to worry about having no idea what they've done and/or what they are doing at this time. Just one of many different ways to solve this problem that doesn't require exotic or strange practices.
"I have to implement feature , the requirements doc (if any) can be found at: A synopsis of the feature is: In order to satisfy those needs architecturally, I've decided to implement like because we want to avoid using because it prevents us from in the future..."
These docs are usually a page in a half for a complicated feature that has a potentially confusing architectural design.
The problem isn't in what you do up front or at the end, it is making a developer keep a document up to date. We're incredibly hard working about some aspects of our profession and ridiculously lazy about others
Of course it would endanger the primary source of income for Microsoft. I can't believe you actually believe that there is zero risk to Microsoft's office division by making it possible for Linux/Windows hybrid business environments work better together, LOL. While I'd like that personally, if I was a Microsoft shareholder, I sure as hell would not.
I see what you're trying to say, but the logic you used doesn't work ;).
I presume you mean that being pro-ODF doesn't make you anti-MS. It certainly does in my experience, although you're right in that it shouldn't.
Microsoft, iirc, is actually planning on standardizing an open XML based format, just not ODF.
It's not independent, it's an aggregate feeling of superiority engendered in the slashdot community as a whole where it is expected that you're anti-Microsoft or you're not here. Merely being here suggests a likely proclivity towards bashing Microsoft (it used to be worse here.) I come off as some kind of Microsoft apologist, when 80% of my career is *nix based and Java, because I believe in being objective. Do you think that article was objective?
No, I would suggest that you are reacting like a traditional slashdot reader and instantly ASSuming everything based upon an article by an author who, in the article if you've read it, admits that he doesn't actually know if this guy lobbied against the ODF. The guy is a, now, ex-employee of Micrsoft where he was in PR. He isn't an evangelist, he isn't a technologist with a personal interest in defeating the ODF, he's a guy who was involved with helping MA in the Clinton days and has now gone there. This article was just another anti-M$ spiel. Seriously, with his previous employer being Microsoft, don't you think his every move regarding ODF would be scrutinized? (Obviously from the posts here.) Any ODF proponents on that group? Don't know do you? You wouldn't care if there were in any case.
Not at all, you're confusing the independent opinion of a regular individual with the concept of an indepedent opinion being held by a member of that technology group. You're also making tons of suppositions regarding the ex-employee of Microsoft who, by the admission of the article's author, isn't even known to be a lobbyist against the ODF, the author suspects that he was. BTW, the guy's position at Microsoft was in PR, ergo, he says whatever he is told to say in order to receive his paycheck. Do you think a lot of ex-Microsoft employees are loyal to their company? We've recently seen several articles on Slashdot suggesting the alternative.
What does that have to do with claiming that because the guy is an ex-M$ employee he's not trustworthy or reliable?
As for the decision to use ODF or not, people like yourself seem to not understand how the free-market works. Microsoft is a PUBLIC COMPANY. Public companies have one primary task, to enrich their shareholders. That's why pensioners, mutual funds, school systems, city governments, et al., invest in them. Arguing that Microsoft should do something that endangers their company bedrock is "not rocket science" is extremely naive.
No offense but you're being a bit naive yourself, the guy is an EX-employee, who is *supposed* to have spoken on Microsoft's behalf (not to be confused with lobbying as a 3rd party) as part of his job while employeed by Microsoft. You seem to assume that ex-employees from Microsoft show some sort of retro-loyalty. He was a PR guy for Microsoft, who is now part of the MA government (his link to the MA government is from his pre-M$ days), and he's seen as disloyal.
Did any of you bother to check and see whether any of the other members were pro-ODF at all? Or had worked for companies or organizations that are pro-ODF? Doubtful. This is the typical slashdot reaction. The mere mention of Microsoft instantly instills FUD.
LOL, *point (not poing), sorry 'bout that.
Are you intentionally avoiding my point? The poing, again, is that there ARE NO INDEPENDENT OPINIONS either here or in that group of people listed by MA to head the TAG. Think anyone on this website has an independent opinion? Not likely, the majority of people here are anti-Microsoft and you know it. Think anyone on that list is any more independent than anyone else? Hell, the former Microsoft guy knows that he'll be scrutinized very closely by the ODF zealots and probably end up being lambasted by anti-ODF zealots.
...ODF advocate? Seriously, do you really think you can find an unbiased IT aware technologist? Especially considering that this was posted on Slashdot? LOL. Either a technology savvy/aware person would be pro MS or pro-ODF, I'd be shocked to find one that wasn't aware of both of them. If you did, I'd suggest he's not up to the job in general. ;)
You obviously have a difficult time reading. This 'poor guy' claim to have a work order, requested by me, from my cable company, because *we* reported to the cable company that *we* were planning on doing some digging. As stated above, he confirmed the name and address on the request for work and the 'requestor.' Now I didn't get to see it, but that's what the 'poor guy' stated. You really seem to come off as the idiot here... LOL.
The 'weird example' is to point out to you that just because you can be legally justified in doing something doesn't make it 'right.'
Potentially taking someone's life is a very serious act. Say he was casing my house. If I suspected that, I'd be all for beating his a**, but shooting him? Why? That's cowardly.