So, what does MIT do with the data they could collect on how many trips to the watercooler I made?
Kneejerk reaction.
These proximity cards need to be very close to the scanner to be "read". Practically you have to wave it in front of the reader. They are not like gps beacons and they are not scanned in from one central location where they track every person's movements. When you want to enter a building, you wave the card and the door opens. When you want to enter a room/lab where you are authorized to have access, you again wave the card in front of the reader and the corresponding door opens. A very practical and useful solution.
No one can know (or will be interested in knowing) how many trips you made to the watercooler.
I generally agree with your viewpoint, but then you can also say that assembly is the best way to program coz you can get the tightest and fastest code, but unless you are trying to optimize code, it's a wreck to program in. Say I have some dsp code which I want to get to run under a certain mips, I would roll up my sleeves and write certain sections in assembly, but for my general program I would still use C coz it doesn't hamper me with lack of simple syntax. The same analogy applies here, if I have a huge algorithm to write, I would hate to do it in Fortran. I've seen Fortran 77 (to be fair, I haven't seen 90,95 or 2000, so I may be wrong in saying that it's not user friendly now), and it was a nightmare to program and debug. I believe the same functionality could be achieved using a better syntax, and if F95/2000 has done it, then it's a great thing to have.
Please ANYTHING BUT FORTRAN!!!!!!!
Seriously, FORTRAN needs serious reworking to be user friendly in today's age. It was fine a decade or two ago when people were not used to user friendly languages. COBOL anyone? FORTRAN has its uses, but it's horribly, horribly tough to use if you want to combine number crunching with other stuff such as string manipulation.
As another post has mentioned, Perl might really be a good option for a beginner too. Of course, the jokes about ugly unreadable code and beginners will follow:-)
I remember how I got into programming in school - we had these BBC computers which could run BASIC. The language was simple enough for me to understand and intuitive enough for me to actually like programming. (Before that I had seen an aunt learn COBOL and the very look of the language frightened me)
Sure, BASIC is not as advanced as C, BASIC uses GOTO statements, BASIC (not QBASIC though) uses archaic line numbers (but still not as archaic as the Fortran 77 tradition of having to write everything after 7 spaces), but BASIC is the best tool to introduce an enthusiastic person to the world of programming. See this example: In BASIC you would show the person:
10 PRINT "Hello World"
20 END
Bingo, the person magically sees his first program work. Try the same thing with C:
#include
int main(){
printf("Hello World\n");
return 0;
}
See how much more you have to explain? Ever tried to explain stdio.h and int main to someone?:-) Once you introduce a kid to the concepts of do loops, for loops and if..then statements, it is so much easier to learn a complicated language like C. It's a pity you don't have QBASIC shipping with Windows machines any more. Vbscripting is not at the same intuitive level.
Google is doing things very differently behind the interface. For one, the entire interface is rendered using Javascript (AFAI can see).
When you send attachments, the usual way is to browse for the file, then click on the "attach" button and wait for the file to be attached before you send the email. In Gmail, you browse for the file, and the filename shows up on the email. After you have selected all the files you want to attach, you just hit the send button and it sends the email along wth all the files you have attached. It worked out really fast too (I'm using a T1 line but initially I was concerned if it was really sending the file since I sent a huge file (over 2M) and it sent me back to the inbox page in a few seconds. It did work however).
Has anyone tried to make sense of how the Javascript is being used for creating the interface?
The text ads are a big concern for many - like the million flashing ads on hotmail/yahoo are better (sorry couldn't resist it).
So I've been using gmail now and guess what.. I've not seen the text ads on most of my emails (I'm being completely honest here). In fact, none of my personal emails have any ads on the side.
Guess where the ads are? I bought a couple of things on buy.com and ebags.com and when I got the confirmation emails from them, I saw related ads on the side. Did I notice them? no, I saw them only when I was going through all the emails to see where the ads are. Did I mind them? Heck no - they are really unobtrusive.
That said, there are still things I'd like to see implemented in Gmail, and I send in bug reports/suggestions constantly - The amazing thing is that this is probably the first email service in the world that's being designed by the users. I can't remember any other service that had beta testers like this (and beta testers who were eager to do the testing), so I'm confident that at the end of 6 months, they'll give us a really usable email service. I'm glad this is happening.
If you have a decent mail reader, Gmail has nothing to offer you.
Can you use it from any computer in the world?
Seriously, there are some great things you can do with a mail reader, gnus, outlook, eudora - all of them can do some nifty things, but web based email has an advantage which none of them can offer - I don't have to tell you this - the ability to access your email from any box anywhere in the world as long as you have an email connection and a browser.
So instead of comparing apples to oranges, let's dwell on the merits of gmail w.r.t other web based email services.
I just tried both. I sent two separate emails, one had abortion and miscarriage in both the subject line and the body (with some other text thrown in) and the other had car accident suicide and funeral. Neither of them turned up any ads in Gmail. Which leads me to believe that they probably have some categories for which they won't serve any ads in the email (Email after all is of a more personal nature than a web search where you are actually looking for information on that particular topic)
Imagine, for example, a phone company that halves your rates in exchange for being allowed to sell transcripts of your phone conversations
Where did you get the ridiculous idea that Google is selling your email transcripts? Google is inserting text ads (automatically) in your email - the advertisers do not get to see your email.
Also, Google has mentioned that it won't be inserting ads indiscriminately - you can trust them to be intelligent enough not insert casket ads!
I've been using Gmail and I can vouch for the fact that the text ads do not even appear in all the pages - just a few emails - and not obtrusively like Yahoo! or Hotmail which put their ads right at the bottom of emails which get sent out - here only you see the ads which you may not even notice since they are just tiny text.
I've been using Gmail and I find it incredibly useful. My favs: 1. The keyboard shortcuts: allows me to use web based email the way I use Pine.. do everything without touching the mouse even once.
2. The tracking of emails to display them as "conversations".. so neat, it looks almost obvious.
3. The much griped about text ads are totally unobtrusive, and (faint, faint) they do not even appear on all email pages. Google probably has some algorithm to decide which conversations can get targeted ads.
4. The address autocomplete - no more clicking on email addresses in a popup window to insert them. It works exactly like a proper client application (as different from a browser app)
5. To reply to an email, all I have to do is click in a textbox below the email and presto! the compose widgets are there.. great time saver.. and you can see the conversation on top.
and the best part..
6. The interface is so clean and clutter free - it has google written all over it!
and as a user of Gmail, I have to say that it Rocks! It finds simple solutions to stuff which seems so intuitive now that I use it.. makes one wonder why no one could think of it earlier.. I'm very very impressed!
JPEG is not *necessarily* lossy. The JPEG specification allows for both lossy and lossless compression.
In common parlance, however, JPEG refers to the *JPEG baseline algorithm* which is lossy (but allows you to define the amount of loss). Note that even though you can create images that are visually lossless, baseline JPEG can never produce truly (mathematically) lossless compression. (no, not even if you set quality=100)
If you want lossless JPEG compression, there's the standard called *lossless JPEG* (LJPEG) which doesn't provide a high degree of compression though. There's also *JPEG-LS* which is another JPEG standard which provides for lossless compression.
If that's not enough JPEG for you, there's the new standard called *JPEG 2000* which allows a host of features such as the ability to choose between lossy and lossless compression, progressive transmission etc.
So calling JPEG lossy is true only if you are referring to baseline JPEG.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what does MIT do with the data they could collect on how many trips to the watercooler I made?
Kneejerk reaction.
These proximity cards need to be very close to the scanner to be "read". Practically you have to wave it in front of the reader. They are not like gps beacons and they are not scanned in from one central location where they track every person's movements. When you want to enter a building, you wave the card and the door opens. When you want to enter a room/lab where you are authorized to have access, you again wave the card in front of the reader and the corresponding door opens. A very practical and useful solution.
No one can know (or will be interested in knowing) how many trips you made to the watercooler.
I generally agree with your viewpoint, but then you can also say that assembly is the best way to program coz you can get the tightest and fastest code, but unless you are trying to optimize code, it's a wreck to program in. Say I have some dsp code which I want to get to run under a certain mips, I would roll up my sleeves and write certain sections in assembly, but for my general program I would still use C coz it doesn't hamper me with lack of simple syntax. The same analogy applies here, if I have a huge algorithm to write, I would hate to do it in Fortran. I've seen Fortran 77 (to be fair, I haven't seen 90,95 or 2000, so I may be wrong in saying that it's not user friendly now), and it was a nightmare to program and debug. I believe the same functionality could be achieved using a better syntax, and if F95/2000 has done it, then it's a great thing to have.
Please ANYTHING BUT FORTRAN!!!!!!! Seriously, FORTRAN needs serious reworking to be user friendly in today's age. It was fine a decade or two ago when people were not used to user friendly languages. COBOL anyone? FORTRAN has its uses, but it's horribly, horribly tough to use if you want to combine number crunching with other stuff such as string manipulation.
The first all-indian Intel chip is a Xeon designed in Whitefield, Bangalore.
oops, the got eaten up by slashdot :-)
:-)
As another post has mentioned, Perl might really be a good option for a beginner too. Of course, the jokes about ugly unreadable code and beginners will follow
That is its biggest strength.
:-) Once you introduce a kid to the concepts of do loops, for loops and if..then statements, it is so much easier to learn a complicated language like C. It's a pity you don't have QBASIC shipping with Windows machines any more. Vbscripting is not at the same intuitive level.
I remember how I got into programming in school - we had these BBC computers which could run BASIC. The language was simple enough for me to understand and intuitive enough for me to actually like programming. (Before that I had seen an aunt learn COBOL and the very look of the language frightened me)
Sure, BASIC is not as advanced as C, BASIC uses GOTO statements, BASIC (not QBASIC though) uses archaic line numbers (but still not as archaic as the Fortran 77 tradition of having to write everything after 7 spaces), but BASIC is the best tool to introduce an enthusiastic person to the world of programming. See this example: In BASIC you would show the person:
10 PRINT "Hello World"
20 END
Bingo, the person magically sees his first program work. Try the same thing with C:
#include
int main(){
printf("Hello World\n");
return 0;
}
See how much more you have to explain? Ever tried to explain stdio.h and int main to someone?
Google is doing things very differently behind the interface. For one, the entire interface is rendered using Javascript (AFAI can see).
When you send attachments, the usual way is to browse for the file, then click on the "attach" button and wait for the file to be attached before you send the email. In Gmail, you browse for the file, and the filename shows up on the email. After you have selected all the files you want to attach, you just hit the send button and it sends the email along wth all the files you have attached. It worked out really fast too (I'm using a T1 line but initially I was concerned if it was really sending the file since I sent a huge file (over 2M) and it sent me back to the inbox page in a few seconds. It did work however).
Has anyone tried to make sense of how the Javascript is being used for creating the interface?
The text ads are a big concern for many - like the million flashing ads on hotmail/yahoo are better (sorry couldn't resist it).
So I've been using gmail now and guess what.. I've not seen the text ads on most of my emails (I'm being completely honest here). In fact, none of my personal emails have any ads on the side.
Guess where the ads are? I bought a couple of things on buy.com and ebags.com and when I got the confirmation emails from them, I saw related ads on the side. Did I notice them? no, I saw them only when I was going through all the emails to see where the ads are. Did I mind them? Heck no - they are really unobtrusive.
That said, there are still things I'd like to see implemented in Gmail, and I send in bug reports/suggestions constantly - The amazing thing is that this is probably the first email service in the world that's being designed by the users. I can't remember any other service that had beta testers like this (and beta testers who were eager to do the testing), so I'm confident that at the end of 6 months, they'll give us a really usable email service. I'm glad this is happening.
"Also, they limit attachement size, but do they limit body size? would it be possible to UUencode the whole thing and stick it as the message text?"
Yes, they do. They limit the total size of an email to be 10 MB which includes the text and (if any) attachments.
There is a good deal on a refurbed DLP projector for about $3500 -- check gotapex.com [gotapex.com]
Pheww! for a moment I thought it was another goatse link.
I own a 15 gig 3g iPod and it's almost full. I'm hardly a power user either, I just collected a shat load of CD's since childhood.
I just collected a shat load of mp3s since getting access to this fat pipe.
If you have a decent mail reader, Gmail has nothing to offer you.
Can you use it from any computer in the world?
Seriously, there are some great things you can do with a mail reader, gnus, outlook, eudora - all of them can do some nifty things, but web based email has an advantage which none of them can offer - I don't have to tell you this - the ability to access your email from any box anywhere in the world as long as you have an email connection and a browser.
So instead of comparing apples to oranges, let's dwell on the merits of gmail w.r.t other web based email services.
I just tried both. I sent two separate emails, one had abortion and miscarriage in both the subject line and the body (with some other text thrown in) and the other had car accident suicide and funeral. Neither of them turned up any ads in Gmail. Which leads me to believe that they probably have some categories for which they won't serve any ads in the email (Email after all is of a more personal nature than a web search where you are actually looking for information on that particular topic)
Thanks for suggesting the test.
Imagine, for example, a phone company that halves your rates in exchange for being allowed to sell transcripts of your phone conversations
Where did you get the ridiculous idea that Google is selling your email transcripts? Google is inserting text ads (automatically) in your email - the advertisers do not get to see your email.
Also, Google has mentioned that it won't be inserting ads indiscriminately - you can trust them to be intelligent enough not insert casket ads!
I've been using Gmail and I can vouch for the fact that the text ads do not even appear in all the pages - just a few emails - and not obtrusively like Yahoo! or Hotmail which put their ads right at the bottom of emails which get sent out - here only you see the ads which you may not even notice since they are just tiny text.
I've been using Gmail and I find it incredibly useful. My favs:
1. The keyboard shortcuts: allows me to use web based email the way I use Pine.. do everything without touching the mouse even once.
2. The tracking of emails to display them as "conversations".. so neat, it looks almost obvious.
3. The much griped about text ads are totally unobtrusive, and (faint, faint) they do not even appear on all email pages. Google probably has some algorithm to decide which conversations can get targeted ads.
4. The address autocomplete - no more clicking on email addresses in a popup window to insert them. It works exactly like a proper client application (as different from a browser app)
5. To reply to an email, all I have to do is click in a textbox below the email and presto! the compose widgets are there.. great time saver.. and you can see the conversation on top.
and the best part..
6. The interface is so clean and clutter free - it has google written all over it!
Maybe next time you're there, you can get one, and realize that the word "you" has three letters. You're only using one of them.
:-)
and yet the meaning can be conveyed by one letter. So much for redundancy
and the great ripping tools available on Linux ;-)
and as a user of Gmail, I have to say that it Rocks! It finds simple solutions to stuff which seems so intuitive now that I use it.. makes one wonder why no one could think of it earlier.. I'm very very impressed!
umm.. public libraries usually have some nice CDs.. and u can borrow them for free...and *cough*rip*cough*
JPEG is patent encumbered, but not royalty and license encumbered. Makes a big practical difference (compare with the gif fiasco)
JPEG is not *necessarily* lossy. The JPEG specification allows for both lossy and lossless compression.
In common parlance, however, JPEG refers to the *JPEG baseline algorithm* which is lossy (but allows you to define the amount of loss). Note that even though you can create images that are visually lossless, baseline JPEG can never produce truly (mathematically) lossless compression. (no, not even if you set quality=100)
If you want lossless JPEG compression, there's the standard called *lossless JPEG* (LJPEG) which doesn't provide a high degree of compression though. There's also *JPEG-LS* which is another JPEG standard which provides for lossless compression.
If that's not enough JPEG for you, there's the new standard called *JPEG 2000* which allows a host of features such as the ability to choose between lossy and lossless compression, progressive transmission etc.
So calling JPEG lossy is true only if you are referring to baseline JPEG.
It is goat.cx
Don't ask me how I know.
This is some of the most level headed advice I've ever heard. Thanks!
funny :-)
Just a joke, lads. In India "Singh" is like "Smith" in the West.
In north India, that is. In the south "Singh" is a martian.