This is a case of following the money. ICANN info isn't going to be helpful, so get back to the root of who paid for the domain registration, and make it clear that it is different from the listed registerer.
I am however somewhat surprised by/skeptical about this story. How did the poster's name and info get associated w/ this? This sounds like an inside job or there's additional info missing from this story (which may be due to just trying to remain anonymous-ish).
This is a non-trivial problem. How do they account for youtube embeds on facebook? Count towards just facebook? Just youtube? Both? What happens to views embedded on other sites? Google gathers data from each view after all, perhaps more, than just the youtube video's primary page.
There are ideographic relationships between concepts and what's in the characters. Each of the elements in complex characters bears some of the meaning of the word. Dictionaries for Chinese and Japanese Kanji are in fact organized in this manner (by character radical). I can't recommend a particular manner of memorizing them (i failed abysmally at the task as a child, and am functionally illiterate as a result), however the relationships are there if you want to look for them.
Happy to see a Google acquisition which has not entirely abandoned their existing userbase, as they are assimilated.
The company i work for has picked up using etherpads here and there, and was intending on doing so further, until the acquisition. I guess we'll probably give the code base a run, and try installing an internal copy:) Rock on Etherpad & Google guys.
Nothing will stop them from filing their patent unless you are aware of their filing, and object.
Then, if you were to do something w/ your idea, they may very well sue you, regardless of their patent's invalidity, making the gamble that you'd rather settle than deal with the legal proceedings required to invalidate their patent.
These guys aren't doing it cause they're smart. They're doing it because they think there's easy money to be made, and it's a pain in the ass to defend yourself in court.
This behavor is called patent trolling. I figure any careful reader of Slashdot would recognize this modus operandi, given it's frequency in News for Nerds.
The original post AND all these comments miss the point.
File sharing is a means of distribution, NOT marketing.
If you are trying to get popular by being the top download on The Pirate Bay, then you're doing it wrong. In my experience, there is very little horizontal movement between pieces of content on torrent trackers. You go to the torrent tracker with something mind, you find it, you download it, you're done. Other media like SoulSeek are much better as an exploratory sharing system.
Nor are popular bands popular just because they're signed to major labels (otherwise Poe one of my favorite artists would be considerably better known than she is). They are popular because major labels and other soul crushing pieces of media machinery market them heavily through all the things that people are connected to. Television shows, movies, radio, the blogosphere, etc.
If you want to be popular, make yourself notable AND easy to get. Torrent trackers take care of the second bit. You've gotta take care of the first bit.
Er, way to troll? If you'd like to do your ridiculous hello world you can stick to:
puts "i like beans"
And it's really unclear what "it" you're referring to. Because Ruby, for me, is a good blend of the things i wanted from Perl and Lisp with a side of Object Orientation. I get all the laziness and conveniences of Perl, and i can do all the crazy stuff i'd want to do with Lisp. So imo, you're way off base.
MacRuby's potential for Cocoa integration is fantastic and great, and something i very very much want to see.
It's not clear however what relationship benchmarks at this stage (with an incomplete implementation) will actually correspond to in the future. They are a total red herring for discussion.
Look at MacRuby on the merits! not the benchmarks!
Consumers don't care about apple rumors. They can't buy rumors.
The only care about what products are available. Only fanbois and panicky investors care about rumors (normal investors should be in it for the long haul anyway).
Sort of an interesting read on why we should ignore mac rumors (and mind you i own 4 macs in my house and use them for dev, so i love 'em just as much as anyone), but otherwise a pretty pointless piece of reading.
The internet is just jam packed with info. Just go sign up for Google's tech talk RSS feed on youtube, that's just a small corner of mostly tech, most of the time (and the occasional diversion into human rights or harry potter as a philosophically christian themed narrative:P ).
This isn't just the OS. This is the OS and the SDK. The tools are the major component of the download. There's a whole android emulator included.:P The OS itself is a couple hundred megs of linux.
No they can't. The platform is still locked down. Google still has device killswitches. They can fork if they don't like what Google's done but that's different from changing what they don't like about how Google's using Android:P
well... Android is a linux based operating system with a custom java virtual machine that accepts java files, and spits out.dex machine code which i think (but not sure) is specific to the G1 at the moment.
So in short, i don't think it's readily portable to other machines (i'm not positive though, it'll depend on the differences in chip architecture and the like, dunno how similar the G1 is to other phones).
I've not read any of Chomsky's political theory. But this is definitely a case of the worst sorts of abuses that Wikipedia is susceptible to.
An editor with a nefarious agenda manages to keep a hold of his account for 2 years because the wikipedia elites have an axe to grind against the nefarious editor's opponents. Who in the end turn out to be correct.
If that's not emblematic of everything that's wrong with wikipedia i don't know what is.
Ensuring fair, reasonable, and standardized elections isn't a good reason?
I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that the current electoral system is ideal. And the failures, as 2000 showed, are fairly catastrophic (i don't mean Bush's policies. I mean the turmoil, and lack of clarity)
The complaints are ironic if what Zed Shaw says is true:
Well, silly boys and girls, rails-core ripped off the idea and probably most of the workings for Campfire from
NextApp Echo2 ChatClient Demo.
I know this because I was in the rails-core
IRC
channel and I showed them how cool this Echo2 framework was, including that chat demo. A few weeks later they had Campfire and since they say it took them two weeks to write it, Iâ(TM)m guessing they got lots of inspiration.
I think it's an error to divide problem solving into purely technological, or purely social issues. Both serve as factors in the equation. If technology makes the economic barriers to solving a problem so miniscule that governments can be shamed into backing a widespread effort, or private funding can back partial solutions, then then further technological solutions are worth pursuing.
That said, there is also Social Tech. NSF funds all manners of research and sociological research is important too. So why not hit both factors?
Re:Google keeping patents on this?
on
Google Goes Green
·
· Score: 1
This initiative is primarily being taken by Google's non-prof, not by google's business, and they're trying to pour funding into organizations who will push the tech forward. I don't think this is solely for the purpose of gathering a patent portfolio. This is money for development.
What are you talking about? How is this hard to understand? This is one of the grand daddies of practical encryption stating that a huge freaking security hole could be opened if encryption is performed on faulty hardware. If a piece of hardware with such a fault was in wide spread use, then a large number of people would be susceptible to exploits which would be able to defeat public key encryption (e.g. HTTPS, ssh, etc).
Sorry, i should be clearer. Decentralization without 100% open access to outside networks makes any effort to "free" data from proprietary networks impossible. What i describe could be considered decentralized in a sense (in that parts of a universal network would be owned by different entities), but there would have to be agreement on what sort of interface would be used for reciprocal transactions (friending across disparate pars of the network), so it would still need a centralized standards body to define the conventions that all the sub-networks would follow.
Actually decentralization makes open social networking impossible. Social networks are inherently closed, and members opt in. Even if you can go trapezing through social networks collecting data, it is most certainly a violation of someone's privacy to copy their data without their permission to a new location, and your new tool is DOA if you have to get every member's approval to free their data. If you can't copy their data out, your new network is also screwed, because you'll have dead pointers all over the place (i.e. opening nodes from the network would be lossy).
The only conceivable way to really open social networking, is to actually open social networking, i.e. you have to make all applications allow the creation of reciprocal pointers to locations outside of the network, so that a network can reference a person without violating their privacy by duplicating their data.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a case of following the money. ICANN info isn't going to be helpful, so get back to the root of who paid for the domain registration, and make it clear that it is different from the listed registerer.
I am however somewhat surprised by/skeptical about this story. How did the poster's name and info get associated w/ this? This sounds like an inside job or there's additional info missing from this story (which may be due to just trying to remain anonymous-ish).
This is a non-trivial problem. How do they account for youtube embeds on facebook? Count towards just facebook? Just youtube? Both? What happens to views embedded on other sites? Google gathers data from each view after all, perhaps more, than just the youtube video's primary page.
There are ideographic relationships between concepts and what's in the characters. Each of the elements in complex characters bears some of the meaning of the word. Dictionaries for Chinese and Japanese Kanji are in fact organized in this manner (by character radical). I can't recommend a particular manner of memorizing them (i failed abysmally at the task as a child, and am functionally illiterate as a result), however the relationships are there if you want to look for them.
If you check the other uploaded videos on youtube by the same guy (who's name appears to be "Ben Lindquist", the CEO of Green Phosphor, found on blogger and twitter), there is an introduction to Green Phosphor's Glasshouse. So yeah, Slashvertisement done in the style of Lost.
/sigh.
Welcome to the future of advertising.
Happy to see a Google acquisition which has not entirely abandoned their existing userbase, as they are assimilated. The company i work for has picked up using etherpads here and there, and was intending on doing so further, until the acquisition. I guess we'll probably give the code base a run, and try installing an internal copy :) Rock on Etherpad & Google guys.
Oh, naïveté.
Nothing will stop them from filing their patent unless you are aware of their filing, and object.
Then, if you were to do something w/ your idea, they may very well sue you, regardless of their patent's invalidity, making the gamble that you'd rather settle than deal with the legal proceedings required to invalidate their patent.
These guys aren't doing it cause they're smart. They're doing it because they think there's easy money to be made, and it's a pain in the ass to defend yourself in court.
This behavor is called patent trolling. I figure any careful reader of Slashdot would recognize this modus operandi, given it's frequency in News for Nerds.
So what can i say?
You must be new here.
The original post AND all these comments miss the point.
.
File sharing is a means of distribution , NOT marketing
If you are trying to get popular by being the top download on The Pirate Bay, then you're doing it wrong. In my experience, there is very little horizontal movement between pieces of content on torrent trackers. You go to the torrent tracker with something mind, you find it, you download it, you're done. Other media like SoulSeek are much better as an exploratory sharing system.
Nor are popular bands popular just because they're signed to major labels (otherwise Poe one of my favorite artists would be considerably better known than she is). They are popular because major labels and other soul crushing pieces of media machinery market them heavily through all the things that people are connected to. Television shows, movies, radio, the blogosphere, etc.
If you want to be popular, make yourself notable AND easy to get. Torrent trackers take care of the second bit. You've gotta take care of the first bit.
Er, way to troll? If you'd like to do your ridiculous hello world you can stick to:
puts "i like beans"
And it's really unclear what "it" you're referring to. Because Ruby, for me, is a good blend of the things i wanted from Perl and Lisp with a side of Object Orientation. I get all the laziness and conveniences of Perl, and i can do all the crazy stuff i'd want to do with Lisp. So imo, you're way off base.
MacRuby matters for a lot of reasons. Early benchmarks aren't one of them. http://blog.headius.com/2009/03/on-benchmarking.html
MacRuby's potential for Cocoa integration is fantastic and great, and something i very very much want to see.
It's not clear however what relationship benchmarks at this stage (with an incomplete implementation) will actually correspond to in the future. They are a total red herring for discussion.
Look at MacRuby on the merits! not the benchmarks!
Consumers don't care about apple rumors. They can't buy rumors.
The only care about what products are available. Only fanbois and panicky investors care about rumors (normal investors should be in it for the long haul anyway).
Sort of an interesting read on why we should ignore mac rumors (and mind you i own 4 macs in my house and use them for dev, so i love 'em just as much as anyone), but otherwise a pretty pointless piece of reading.
I guess it's still better than idle.
Of course I don't think any of them imagined that it would have any effect on the bitterness over at Slashdot.
And i'm sure that they, like myself, were totally shocked at the rising of the sun again today. Can you imagine the odds!
TBH, i'm surprised to find so many positive comments (i, semi-jokingly, wonder about astroturfing).
The internet is just jam packed with info. Just go sign up for Google's tech talk RSS feed on youtube, that's just a small corner of mostly tech, most of the time (and the occasional diversion into human rights or harry potter as a philosophically christian themed narrative :P ).
Cool, thanks for the info
This isn't just the OS. This is the OS and the SDK. The tools are the major component of the download. There's a whole android emulator included. :P The OS itself is a couple hundred megs of linux.
No they can't. The platform is still locked down. Google still has device killswitches. They can fork if they don't like what Google's done but that's different from changing what they don't like about how Google's using Android :P
well... Android is a linux based operating system with a custom java virtual machine that accepts java files, and spits out .dex machine code which i think (but not sure) is specific to the G1 at the moment.
So in short, i don't think it's readily portable to other machines (i'm not positive though, it'll depend on the differences in chip architecture and the like, dunno how similar the G1 is to other phones).
I've not read any of Chomsky's political theory. But this is definitely a case of the worst sorts of abuses that Wikipedia is susceptible to.
An editor with a nefarious agenda manages to keep a hold of his account for 2 years because the wikipedia elites have an axe to grind against the nefarious editor's opponents. Who in the end turn out to be correct.
If that's not emblematic of everything that's wrong with wikipedia i don't know what is.
Oh, and at least according to Weiss's blog, he's still a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. I don't know about you, but sustained and concerted efforts to distort a subject should be a firing offense for journalists.
Ensuring fair, reasonable, and standardized elections isn't a good reason? I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that the current electoral system is ideal. And the failures, as 2000 showed, are fairly catastrophic (i don't mean Bush's policies. I mean the turmoil, and lack of clarity)
The original story made me cringe. I would have imagined that it would have made Norvig do the same. Hope the rebuttal hits the right points.
Here's the link:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080625-why-the-cloud-cannot-obscure-the-scientific-method.html
The complaints are ironic if what Zed Shaw says is true:
I think it's an error to divide problem solving into purely technological, or purely social issues. Both serve as factors in the equation. If technology makes the economic barriers to solving a problem so miniscule that governments can be shamed into backing a widespread effort, or private funding can back partial solutions, then then further technological solutions are worth pursuing.
That said, there is also Social Tech. NSF funds all manners of research and sociological research is important too. So why not hit both factors?
This initiative is primarily being taken by Google's non-prof, not by google's business, and they're trying to pour funding into organizations who will push the tech forward. I don't think this is solely for the purpose of gathering a patent portfolio. This is money for development.
What are you talking about? How is this hard to understand? This is one of the grand daddies of practical encryption stating that a huge freaking security hole could be opened if encryption is performed on faulty hardware. If a piece of hardware with such a fault was in wide spread use, then a large number of people would be susceptible to exploits which would be able to defeat public key encryption (e.g. HTTPS, ssh, etc).
Sorry, i should be clearer. Decentralization without 100% open access to outside networks makes any effort to "free" data from proprietary networks impossible. What i describe could be considered decentralized in a sense (in that parts of a universal network would be owned by different entities), but there would have to be agreement on what sort of interface would be used for reciprocal transactions (friending across disparate pars of the network), so it would still need a centralized standards body to define the conventions that all the sub-networks would follow.
Actually decentralization makes open social networking impossible. Social networks are inherently closed, and members opt in. Even if you can go trapezing through social networks collecting data, it is most certainly a violation of someone's privacy to copy their data without their permission to a new location, and your new tool is DOA if you have to get every member's approval to free their data. If you can't copy their data out, your new network is also screwed, because you'll have dead pointers all over the place (i.e. opening nodes from the network would be lossy).
The only conceivable way to really open social networking, is to actually open social networking, i.e. you have to make all applications allow the creation of reciprocal pointers to locations outside of the network, so that a network can reference a person without violating their privacy by duplicating their data.