Outsourcing to India and elsewhere was really popular a couple of years ago, but I notice a lot of companies have been insourcing their software development recently. Software itself is not bound by location, but working together on complex software is easier when you sit close together than when half of the team is on the other side of the globe. You introduce a lot of communication overhead into your process. When it's developed in-house, you've got more control over the details, the planning and the quality. People on the other side of the world may be cheaper by the hour, but ultimately, you don't need hours, you need software that solves your problem.
Never took off? I thought it had hundreds of millions of users. In what world is that not taking off?
Where people actually *use* it.
Wait, so because people actually use it, it's not taking off?
Sure, it has millions of users, precisely because google tied it to it's various services.
If I recall, it had 700 million users before Google started tying it to all sorts of services. Though I agree Google does a good job at muddling the real numbers.
But do people actually post on it?
Absolutely. A lot. Every single day. Google+ has become more important than my mailreader.
Do people actually open it and use it to keep in touch with friends and family?
What? Fuck no. I use it to come into contact with complete strangers who share my interests and passions. I keep in touch with friends and family by visiting them.
No, and by your own admission, they couldn't because it gets "pretty heavy" when you keep it open.
Kill the tab and reopen it. It's not that hard. It's just that when chrome starts to seize up, I start to hunt through my tabs to kill any old Google+ tabs I still have open. It loads so much content that it can't possibly be lightweight (though I admit I've never actually measured it).
Fanboy's aside, g+ isn't used
That's the popular talking point by the media and people who don't use it. Seriously, with all the many times that Google+ has been declared dead or a ghost town, you'd almost think somebody is paying to generate bad press.
The reality is that tons of people use it very actively every single day.
and at least part of that blame has to be on the interface.
Perhaps. But then how do you explain the success of Facebook? That interface is far worse.
The Youtube integration is the death of the "no unusual name policy" (it has little to do with real names). Youtubers have the weirdest names, and they all count as G+ names now too.
Never took off? I thought it had hundreds of millions of users. In what world is that not taking off?
Go open it up and time how long the damn thing takes to load up.
I've never really had a problem with it. It's not instantaneous, but it's a big thing and gets all the content asynchronously. I don't find it annoyingly slow to start up, and it's pretty fast once it has started up. The only thing is that it gets pretty heavy if you keep it open.
Like it, hate it, or be indifferent to it - your choice. But don't lie about it and claim that it is a total failure at this point. It does still exist, and people still post to it. Just because people don't jump to it with updates every femtosecond on which coffee shop has the best bathroom or other such useless bullshit doesn't mean it has failed.
Quite the contrary, in fact. That people don't post such meaningless garbage is one of the main reasons behind the high quality of content on Google+.
unfortunately you'll need to buy sourceforge in the same offer which is worth vastly more.
Is it still? I thought the new owners were eagerly working on ruining it.
What evidence is there really of a fall? I know that some media love to bash Google+, and love to proclaim it dead (they've done so since at least 2012), but is Google+ usage actually dropping meaningfully? As far as I can tell, it's as popular as ever among its users, despite Google's attempts to fuck it up.
The fact that Google is going to revert the disastrous Youtube integration is a good thing; the quality of content on Google+ (always its strongest point) can only go up. Google needs to recognize that they've got something that's really good just on its own. There's no need to fuck it up by shoehorning other stuff into it.
They'll certainly never be able to pay off their debt while they're being subjected to measures that only shrink their economy further.
The austerity was always a bad idea, and the stubborn fools of the Eurogroup would rather kill Greece and lose their money than accept that fact.
A country can't declare bankruptcy, but it can refuse to repay their debts. After all, Germany has gotten away for decades with not paying their debt to Greece.
Mostly forgotten today, but clearly relevant in the past, were distinctions between different natural, open bodies of water. Nowadays most people simply call them "meer" (lake), but when you look at their names and their shapes, you'll see a clear difference between a "meer" (big lake), "poel" (smaller lake, often part of a larger lake complex), "aa" or "ee, depending on region (long, narrow lake), and brekken (small, irregularly shaped).
Oh, it probably has plenty of advantages for EU corporations (at least the multinational ones). It just has no advantages for EU citizens, but who cares about them, right?
Maybe the EU is more easily pressured by the US government than by EU companies. The EU is not as corporocratic as the US, but it clearly fears the US.
The real value of Java is that even mediocre programmers can be productive in it. That may sound stupid and like a put down, but it's actually a pretty big deal. There are a lot of mediocre programmers. Java makes them productive.
While this claims to be about Sci-Fi ships, it's really about 20th century naval ships, and the SF inspired by 2th century navies.
The article is interesting for its historical perspective, but if you pay any attention to that historical perspective, you can't help but come to the conclusion that the taxonomy has been turned upside down several times over the past 200 years. For centuries, sea battles were about a big line of ships delivering massive broadsides, with just frigates in a support role. Then suddenly, we get cruisers and massive iron battleships with a fairly small number of enormous, long range guns in turrets, which rule for a moment and then become obsolete again due to torpedoes and aircraft.
But the current supremacy of aircraft carriers is not something that will translate to space; carriers rule because they combine the advantages of two different media: the speed of small air craft, and the steady platform and durability of a large sea-going ship. But in space, every ship will have those advantages. There's no need for carriers, because any ship can be as fast as a fighter, and any ship can be as stable and self-sustaining as it wants to be. Very likely, fighters won't make any sense in space. The only reason they're so popular is because they're cool, and we're used to them because of our 20th century view. Space navies will be totally unlike modern navies, and any similarities in name between ship types will exist only because we like the names and making up new ones is hard.
Why am I talking about a 20th century view, and not 21st century? Because our current ship taxonomy is entirely the product of 20th century developments. No doubt the 21st century will change everything again, but we don't yet know how. Although unmanned drones will feature heavily. So maybe if we're going to have fighters in space, they're going to be unmanned drones. Maybe space battles will consist of smart torpedoes dogfighting with the smart missiles that try to intercept them.
I wouldn't call myself a victim for having skills that are highly in demand. Still, a lot of recruiters seem woefully incompetent, for sending me offers from completely different countries (when I'm even losing interest in working outside the city; commuting by bike is definitely a perk).
But even relevant positions come constantly and when I still have plenty of project to work on. I wish I could pass them on to my unemployed non-programmer friends.
Mutation is a normal result of human reproduction and a vital driver of evolution. You just don't want it to get so far out of hand that new babies aren't viable. Of course somewhere in our reproductive process those telomeres also have to get longer again. No idea how that works. Might be important, I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Outsourcing to India and elsewhere was really popular a couple of years ago, but I notice a lot of companies have been insourcing their software development recently. Software itself is not bound by location, but working together on complex software is easier when you sit close together than when half of the team is on the other side of the globe. You introduce a lot of communication overhead into your process. When it's developed in-house, you've got more control over the details, the planning and the quality. People on the other side of the world may be cheaper by the hour, but ultimately, you don't need hours, you need software that solves your problem.
Never took off? I thought it had hundreds of millions of users. In what world is that not taking off?
Where people actually *use* it.
Wait, so because people actually use it, it's not taking off?
Sure, it has millions of users, precisely because google tied it to it's various services.
If I recall, it had 700 million users before Google started tying it to all sorts of services. Though I agree Google does a good job at muddling the real numbers.
But do people actually post on it?
Absolutely. A lot. Every single day. Google+ has become more important than my mailreader.
Do people actually open it and use it to keep in touch with friends and family?
What? Fuck no. I use it to come into contact with complete strangers who share my interests and passions. I keep in touch with friends and family by visiting them.
No, and by your own admission, they couldn't because it gets "pretty heavy" when you keep it open.
Kill the tab and reopen it. It's not that hard. It's just that when chrome starts to seize up, I start to hunt through my tabs to kill any old Google+ tabs I still have open. It loads so much content that it can't possibly be lightweight (though I admit I've never actually measured it).
Fanboy's aside, g+ isn't used
That's the popular talking point by the media and people who don't use it. Seriously, with all the many times that Google+ has been declared dead or a ghost town, you'd almost think somebody is paying to generate bad press.
The reality is that tons of people use it very actively every single day.
and at least part of that blame has to be on the interface.
Perhaps. But then how do you explain the success of Facebook? That interface is far worse.
Advanced Twitter is a good way of putting it. It's basically Twitter without all the needless restrictions, plus a way to have actual conversations.
The Youtube integration is the death of the "no unusual name policy" (it has little to do with real names). Youtubers have the weirdest names, and they all count as G+ names now too.
Some great reasons as to why G+ never took off,
Never took off? I thought it had hundreds of millions of users. In what world is that not taking off?
Go open it up and time how long the damn thing takes to load up.
I've never really had a problem with it. It's not instantaneous, but it's a big thing and gets all the content asynchronously. I don't find it annoyingly slow to start up, and it's pretty fast once it has started up. The only thing is that it gets pretty heavy if you keep it open.
Like it, hate it, or be indifferent to it - your choice. But don't lie about it and claim that it is a total failure at this point. It does still exist, and people still post to it. Just because people don't jump to it with updates every femtosecond on which coffee shop has the best bathroom or other such useless bullshit doesn't mean it has failed.
Quite the contrary, in fact. That people don't post such meaningless garbage is one of the main reasons behind the high quality of content on Google+.
unfortunately you'll need to buy sourceforge in the same offer which is worth vastly more.
Is it still? I thought the new owners were eagerly working on ruining it.
What evidence is there really of a fall? I know that some media love to bash Google+, and love to proclaim it dead (they've done so since at least 2012), but is Google+ usage actually dropping meaningfully? As far as I can tell, it's as popular as ever among its users, despite Google's attempts to fuck it up.
The fact that Google is going to revert the disastrous Youtube integration is a good thing; the quality of content on Google+ (always its strongest point) can only go up. Google needs to recognize that they've got something that's really good just on its own. There's no need to fuck it up by shoehorning other stuff into it.
Because they don't control their own money. They have the Euro. The only way for them to print their own money is to leave the Euro.
They'll certainly never be able to pay off their debt while they're being subjected to measures that only shrink their economy further.
The austerity was always a bad idea, and the stubborn fools of the Eurogroup would rather kill Greece and lose their money than accept that fact.
A country can't declare bankruptcy, but it can refuse to repay their debts. After all, Germany has gotten away for decades with not paying their debt to Greece.
Interesting stuff!
Mostly forgotten today, but clearly relevant in the past, were distinctions between different natural, open bodies of water. Nowadays most people simply call them "meer" (lake), but when you look at their names and their shapes, you'll see a clear difference between a "meer" (big lake), "poel" (smaller lake, often part of a larger lake complex), "aa" or "ee, depending on region (long, narrow lake), and brekken (small, irregularly shaped).
I think ditches are greppels in Dutch.
I thought Venice was the Amsterdam of the south. And the small Dutch town of Giethoorn was the Venice of the north.
Dutch has a lot of words for bodies of water. A bit like Eskimos and snow perhaps.
The US is both a democracy and a republic.
Nominally. Its democracy is extremely dysfunctional. It's effectively a corporatocratic oligarchy.
If anyone still needed any proof that voting in political elections is not much more relevant than voting in American Idol...
That attitude is exactly what's keeping you in this mess. Of course voting matters! You just need to stop voting for the same two evils.
Like the Republican candidate was not going to be worse.
Hard to imagine how *any* candidate could be worse.
I would love to agree with you, but unfortunately I've heard some of the candidates for the next election.
Oh, it probably has plenty of advantages for EU corporations (at least the multinational ones). It just has no advantages for EU citizens, but who cares about them, right?
Maybe the EU is more easily pressured by the US government than by EU companies. The EU is not as corporocratic as the US, but it clearly fears the US.
The real value of Java is that even mediocre programmers can be productive in it. That may sound stupid and like a put down, but it's actually a pretty big deal. There are a lot of mediocre programmers. Java makes them productive.
While this claims to be about Sci-Fi ships, it's really about 20th century naval ships, and the SF inspired by 2th century navies.
The article is interesting for its historical perspective, but if you pay any attention to that historical perspective, you can't help but come to the conclusion that the taxonomy has been turned upside down several times over the past 200 years. For centuries, sea battles were about a big line of ships delivering massive broadsides, with just frigates in a support role. Then suddenly, we get cruisers and massive iron battleships with a fairly small number of enormous, long range guns in turrets, which rule for a moment and then become obsolete again due to torpedoes and aircraft.
But the current supremacy of aircraft carriers is not something that will translate to space; carriers rule because they combine the advantages of two different media: the speed of small air craft, and the steady platform and durability of a large sea-going ship. But in space, every ship will have those advantages. There's no need for carriers, because any ship can be as fast as a fighter, and any ship can be as stable and self-sustaining as it wants to be. Very likely, fighters won't make any sense in space. The only reason they're so popular is because they're cool, and we're used to them because of our 20th century view. Space navies will be totally unlike modern navies, and any similarities in name between ship types will exist only because we like the names and making up new ones is hard.
Why am I talking about a 20th century view, and not 21st century? Because our current ship taxonomy is entirely the product of 20th century developments. No doubt the 21st century will change everything again, but we don't yet know how. Although unmanned drones will feature heavily. So maybe if we're going to have fighters in space, they're going to be unmanned drones. Maybe space battles will consist of smart torpedoes dogfighting with the smart missiles that try to intercept them.
In Netherland, there's a surprising number of British recruiters active. No idea why.
I wouldn't call myself a victim for having skills that are highly in demand. Still, a lot of recruiters seem woefully incompetent, for sending me offers from completely different countries (when I'm even losing interest in working outside the city; commuting by bike is definitely a perk).
But even relevant positions come constantly and when I still have plenty of project to work on. I wish I could pass them on to my unemployed non-programmer friends.
You want to go back to the days of full page reloads every time you do something?
Mutation is a normal result of human reproduction and a vital driver of evolution. You just don't want it to get so far out of hand that new babies aren't viable. Of course somewhere in our reproductive process those telomeres also have to get longer again. No idea how that works. Might be important, I guess.
Only if in both cases it's the man who initiates it.