though the battery sometimes doesn't respond well to being parked outside overnight in sub-zero. You also have to wonder what cumulative effect road salt ions will play. Seems the ions in the sea air in California like my 12v battery a lot, I do wonder how hybrids are doing with their higher voltage.
I am sure Honda and other car manufacturers knows these things and I am sure they adressed (or still are) these issues. I am glad to hear that fuelcells are making their appearance finally, even if "beta testing" for now:)
:)
Well, the comparison to women is interesting..
However, when you have a server that is not preforming well enough, you can get another one:) twice the "horse power".. Now... what would that translate to in the computers-women analogy?
Firefox is ultimately a lightweight browser that can be easily expanded to suit an end-user's individual preferences. There are freely available extensions that will convert Firefox into the most feature-rich browser imaginable.
I love FireFox. I use it whenever I can. However, I hardly think it is lightweight. As a matter of fact, it eats RAM like crazy.it is rare to find the process taking less than 150MB on my machine. I indeed have several tabs open, but still. It is not really lightweight. (Unless you mean the program size on the disk? - which is not really an important issue, is it?) A fix for the memory consumption problem (maybe its memory leakage?) and you have a kickass browser without a doubt
I am using Firefox for 90% of what I do. Only thing I switch to IE for are AxtiveX enabled sites (like bank account), or some rare sites that don't work/render correctly on FireFox.
Other than that, FireFox is really superb.
Patents protect physical inventions. Software is not a physical invention; it is the written expression of an idea. Copyright, not patent, is the appropriate area of IP law to deal with this.
Who said patents are only for physical inventions? This is certainly not true, at least for most countries I know. It makes perfect sense to allow patents on non physical inventions, including algorithms and even business practices (if indeed the inventor invested enough time/effort on them).
Yep. That is what I meant. It has been a long while since patent laws were reviewed. I think, if reviewed again, they should only be changed to allow fair use of the patents. What is fair? well, that is a difficult question, but I am sure we can find an imperfect answer which is better than the current state.
:).. fair enough
What I said was actually meant to be funny. I'll work on sharpenning the sense of humor for the next post;)
What I meant was, that having servers far away from you, sometimes in a far away country, having remove access is a bless. That's why I mentioned SSH and shutdown -r;). As for frequent reboots, if your server is 16 hours flight from you, even twice a year is too much if you have to go there;)
I agree with you to a certain extent.
However, I hear/.ers say that software should not be patentable. Why is that? What is special about software that it shouldn't quality?
Patents are there to do two things:
1. Protect inventors who work hard on creating something new, which is sometimes easy to replicate. So that when they do succeed, sometimes after a long hard work, it is them who enjoy the fruits of their work. This is by itself a nobel cause I think.
2. To allow (after certain number of years, depending on the field of patent) for everyone to easily replicate the patent for the benefit of man kind. This is done by requiring that the patent is well documented and easy to reproduce. This is by itself also a nobel cause.
The problem begins when companies are granted patents on very basic things. Be it algorithms, concepts or code. Software is no different than any other field. If someone doesn't like softtware patents, I don't see how he/she can justify any patent. If they like patents in one field, software patents should be as valid. If they don't like patent at all, that is another matter. However, it is not by mistake that patents are recognized in almost all developed countries. It will be counter productive to man kind if we did not compensate inventors.
The only exceptions I see to that are these:
1. Pointless patents and patents to too-simple things: One-click-shopping (amazon). This patent was given as a business practive patent to Amazon for saving the user's payent details for future purchases. What is this?? Is that a patent? As a business practice? No way. And the fact that it held in court is rediculous (imho). My cable company keeps my CC details in case I even want to order a new VOD movie or new channel. They did it long before Amazon existed (maybe not the VOD part;)).
2. Unfair uses of patents: JPEG patent - now you remeber to say? after jpeg is standard in every application? It is true you are not obliged to tell the world about your patent, but if you do plan to monitize it, why did you waited so long? It hold the world by its balls? Unfair. Video streaming (Acacia) patent - same thing. In fact, the Acacia patent is unfair in many ways.. It is a case where a patent was purchased by a law office only to make money by basically extorting licencing fees. Licencing fees are a perfect way to compensate inventors. However, it shouldn't be used in a dishonets manner, where you keep quiet for many years only to let the world get addicted to something and then, out of the blue, strike.
3. Holding back on patents: You invented something? Good. USE IT. Don't write a patent for something and then refuse to use it or licence it for a fair fee. This is cunter productive to BOTH reasons of the patent. By not using it you are not compensating the inventor for her/his invention. You might be paying him to "keep thier invention to themselves" and by that cripple the market/competition. But that is unfair to the inventor, invention and the public.
in conclusion, I think patents are very important and positive thing. But they should be used as a positive tool, not a negative one. Positive to the inventors and the society.
well, 2 things.
1. It is a very "loney" place. By "it" I mean both the internet and AdBrite. Setting up a section on your site will not easily bring in advertisers on its own. And for a site that is not big, it is hard to bring in advertisers on its own. That is why ad agencies/networds are easier to work with.
2. As an advertiser, working with both cpm and cpc ads on adBrite, we had very hard time assesing how good a spot was based on the stats from adBrite. We started a campaign on a site. CPM. The estimated clicks per day were 1/4 of what adBrite estimated. I know CTRs vary. But it is text ad and we targeted the text. Kind of hard to figure out why we got 1/4 than average. Secondly, we couldn't find the ad on the site even though we did get clicks. There was an adBrite zone on the site but our ad was not there. So it apparently was on another section of the site. However, referer lead us nowhere. With other ad agencies, you sometimes have control over where your ad shows up when its CPM based. We didn't have that control in this case.
not really.
Anyway, the competition is supposedly developing a free office/os alternative, and StarOffice is free anyway. So MS is not really giving it cheaper than the competition.
Anti-competitive can't really hold when you are talking about MS vs. Google given that google is not really a poor competitor and taking into consideration that Google will have hard time proving they are not a monopolistic company by themselves in the search arena.
Take for example the latest news about google TV thingy.. Probably planning on giving out free TV broadcast for advertising, right? Does that classify as giving away free product in an already existing (paid) market? I don't think so. It might very easily mistaken for Anti competitive act when the company you are up against is a huge wealthy company. Think about all the products google releases. None of them costs money, right? However, they are all going into existing markets (paid or free). It is not really anti competitive actions on behalf of google, are they? They are just moves of a huge company with very deep pockets. Same for MS. Only thing is, MS is going against Google, which is hardly a defensless company.
Hmm..
You must be a very dedicated system administrator if any time you need to reboot a server (even if it's once a year), you take your car, walk to the datacenter and push the reset button instead of using a shutdown command:)
However, as dedicated as you seem to imply, I would not want you as my sysadmin, since in most cases we need a reboot nowm rather than tomorrow;)
Would Google be allowed to store scanned copies of books even if the authors opt out?
That is an interesting question. Regardless of copyright laws, support of robots.txt allows the owner of a site to opt out. However, with books it is very different.
Someday, those print copies are going to be destroyed or deteriorate to the point of uselessness, which means that Google could be archiving works that might otherwise be lost forever.
I don't think its google's mandate really. If anyone should be considered as trusted with this task, wouldn't it be the libraries and universities themselves?
I still don't get the uproar over the scanning, because it's not like the entire book is made available for free. The search is so crippled that it makes me think the people who are upset have never used it before.
The uproar is about copying (scanning is exactly that) a copyrighted material without the permission or knowledge of the owner, while it clearly satates so on/in most books. It is a full copy of the data and by today's law not really allowed.
It is in principal as illegal as a student photocopying a book (at least it was illegal when I was a student). While maybe not financially smart if using a photocopy, having it in a digital copy is different. Illegal uses/reproduction or stealing of the material is very easy.
What I want ot know is this...
What if I copied the last 10 year's films, and when RIAA comes to sue me, I say it is the same as google copying books, since I use it to search. And I share it with other "searchers" all around the net, through P2P search system (which happens to be called torrent)?
Besides the fact that I don't have the $90B to drag that case in courts for 1000 years.. what is the basic difference?
The writer is a GUI user.. I can't really say I know much about some of the tools there. From my POV, SSH is a must in any list. Also, wont be able to live without "shutdown", since the servers we work with are remote.. so.. I guess that would make shutdown (-r ofcourse) #1 on my list:)
..what are the benefits of that? I mean, why would I WANT google ads on my TV? Is it going to be free TV? If so, what will make it better TV that other free channels?
Besides being google, what will that DVR/TV do different than similar alternatives? Anyone has any insight on that?
I don't even understand what he says. Or maybe it's the beer I just had?;)
Anyway.. What reality check? reality is well known. I know very few people (actually I can count them on one finger) that uses linux as a desktop. So nothing new there. It's hard? Well.. tough sh*t.. they are not a free software. You have to pay for redhat. right? So they should deal with these obstecales.
Yes. I tried adbrite. Didnt like the results at all.
I am not saying Adsense/Adwords is the worst. I am just saying they can do with major fixing up.
I used Casale as well. And it was much better than google. And that is general, untargeted, none contextual ads. And still it was much better than adsense. I expected targeted contextual ads on a blog service to be much much better than a much smaller cpm-only ad network. Well, guess what, I was wrong. Adsense performed badly.
I think google would be nowhere today if they didn't have their search engine. And if they for some reason decide to drop it, they would go back to where they started.
Really?:)
When was the last time you used google blogsearch?. With all due respect to what google achieved, it is not as good of a search engine as we sometimes make of it here on/. or elsewhere. And this is certainly true for the company entirely and especially their latest products.
I hear many here talk about the talent of people in google, and there is no doubt many talented people at google (some are recent, or old, recruits from MS btw;)). But let us not overestimate talent. Googletalk, Blogsearch and even the desktop search are all inferior products. inferior to what? Googletalk to ICQ/MSN/Skype; Blogsearch to.. well.. to basically almost any blog search out there (Technorati, IceRocket,...); Desktop search, well, the product is plain bad. no need to find better examples really, is there?;)
Google is popular, very. And this popularity is a product of what their search engine offered over the past 6 years. A result of a lot of work by a lot of talented people. Creating a very scalable system, fast and above all manageable!. And the result - FAST and relevant results.
Even today, it is still blazing fast. Relevant? well, that is the $90B question.
In my opinion, google needs major work on their search engine. Although funny, searching for "failure" on google, only proves how irrelevant google can be made.. and that is a key issue "be made". Google relevancy is in the hands of the people who own sites, not necessarily relevant sites with relevant content, but ones that know how to "fool" google. Not all the time, but many times. And that is certainly not good, and apparently easy enough to do. We sometimes get exactly what we search for, right? At least we think so, which might be good enough. But who knows what we do not get when we search for things? (after all we never get it;) )
Not sure MS can do anything too fast to hinder google's hold. But the question is what about the long run. Keep in mind there are talented people at MS as well. Microsoft is not what it is now simply because of Gates (as talented as he might be). It is not a perfect company, and their products are far from perfect in many cases. But they have resources and abilities. And some experience behind them. Despite their questionable tactics in the past (and probably future) they are a dangerous adversary. Ask Sony (PlayStation).
Someone said that MS won't go into the SE game if there was no money in it (for example if they had an advertising free search engine). I definitely think otherwise. What MS realizes is that they are loosing ground to Google. And that realization started around the same time when google started reaching out, across the search engine fence. Google is expanding very fast into anything they can, and that is a dangerous things for a company as big as MS. If anything, MS will combat google on the SE market, Adwords/Adsense market and any other that is a major income source for google, even if only to limit google's value, income and ability to control market segments.
Will that happen? If you ask me, probably.
IS that good? If you ask me, I dunno:) It is certainly competition (dirty or not, time will tell). Google will have to catch up, and that will mean also less time and resources to expand into Google-Wifi, Google-coffee and later on Google-babies;)
Will it be better for us? If you ask me, it better be - otherwise where is the fun in this!?
hmm..
I'm not sure I get what you are saying.. Are you saying that google will be anywhere in lets say 3-5 years, if they dropped google.com and focused on adsense?
I can only tell you from my experience that Adsense is a poor choice for many sites (including some of mine) compared to alternatives, that without google.com if would be nowhere (certainly not anywhere near where it is now) and that as a product, it needs major work on.
We are an in-the-closet start-your-own-company startup who wants to be out-of-the-blue company. To do that we are planning to raise investment from an over-the-sky VC and become off-the-scale enterprise, being bought by the end of the fiscal year by a without-a-doubt big conglomerate.
AND by the way, we are web2.0 compliant so we believe we will flip before we flop and be able to mashup our deep-web syndication of bubble open-source companies' databases making a killer eCPM by SEOing their portals to attract eyeballs and by that raise valuation and eventually exit by IPOing to the generally buzzword-ignorant investor in the bullish stock market.;)
My parents used pillows. So did their parents. And so on.
What I would like the researches to prove that dangerous things are bad for us! Because so many times they pointed out that wter, air, earth, sun,...., life is deadly (or plain dangerous;)) and we are all (well, most of us) still alive;)
So maybe dangerous things have negative correlation with death?:)
Wish they wasted their time on researching this. (I am wondering how come people who are supposed to be smart waste their time researching dumb things)
:) Exactly!. Here comes the end of McDonalds/BurgerKing/KFC/...
if only people knew what happened to their favorite cow/hen from the time it was "medically-pleasent put to sleep" in the "farm" till it reached their "low-carb" bun/plate, they would all go vegan:D
Although InnoDB is quite a niece piece of work, I wouldn't call it a key piece of the MySQL server software. It is just one of the *many* storage backends supported by MySQL, and it's not by far the most used (99% of the MySQL installs i've seen only use the internally developped MyISAM storage engine which btw is the default one...
Hmm. Not true.
There are indeed several (not many) storage engines with MySQL. However the two most used are InnoDB and MySQL. And InnoDB is usually used when MySQL is not appropriate - which is in write-heavy applications. I would agree that most installations use mySQL and not innodb, but as a secondary engine it's a VERY important part of MySQL.
And btw, people who need transactions and advanced features tend to use postgresql instead of mysql+innodb...
I never understood why man is obsessed with going to space... I bet it has nice view of our globe;) but I understand its the most dangerous place on earth (hmm... actually off earth), right after port morsbey;)
The concept of having a big "rope" in the middle of the sea, reaching out to space, with elavator/s connected to it, exposed to attacks from Al Quaida, Bush (if Al Quaida ever uses it), The sea, the wind, commets, space debree, mir stations, dumb people pressing the wrong buttons, harrasing the elavator or crowding it (especially with the overweight problem in the world) and whatnot.. it will NEVER work (Just like trying to make medicine of germs). Mark my words;)
Slashdot Mirror
:) :) twice the "horse power".. Now... what would that translate to in the computers-women analogy?
Well, the comparison to women is interesting..
However, when you have a server that is not preforming well enough, you can get another one
I am using Firefox for 90% of what I do. Only thing I switch to IE for are AxtiveX enabled sites (like bank account), or some rare sites that don't work/render correctly on FireFox.
Other than that, FireFox is really superb.
Yep. That is what I meant. It has been a long while since patent laws were reviewed. I think, if reviewed again, they should only be changed to allow fair use of the patents. What is fair? well, that is a difficult question, but I am sure we can find an imperfect answer which is better than the current state.
:).. fair enough ;) ;). As for frequent reboots, if your server is 16 hours flight from you, even twice a year is too much if you have to go there ;)
What I said was actually meant to be funny. I'll work on sharpenning the sense of humor for the next post
What I meant was, that having servers far away from you, sometimes in a far away country, having remove access is a bless. That's why I mentioned SSH and shutdown -r
I agree with you to a certain extent. /.ers say that software should not be patentable. Why is that? What is special about software that it shouldn't quality?
However, I hear
Patents are there to do two things:
1. Protect inventors who work hard on creating something new, which is sometimes easy to replicate. So that when they do succeed, sometimes after a long hard work, it is them who enjoy the fruits of their work. This is by itself a nobel cause I think.
2. To allow (after certain number of years, depending on the field of patent) for everyone to easily replicate the patent for the benefit of man kind. This is done by requiring that the patent is well documented and easy to reproduce. This is by itself also a nobel cause.
The problem begins when companies are granted patents on very basic things. Be it algorithms, concepts or code. Software is no different than any other field. If someone doesn't like softtware patents, I don't see how he/she can justify any patent. If they like patents in one field, software patents should be as valid. If they don't like patent at all, that is another matter. However, it is not by mistake that patents are recognized in almost all developed countries. It will be counter productive to man kind if we did not compensate inventors.
The only exceptions I see to that are these:
1. Pointless patents and patents to too-simple things: One-click-shopping (amazon). This patent was given as a business practive patent to Amazon for saving the user's payent details for future purchases. What is this?? Is that a patent? As a business practice? No way. And the fact that it held in court is rediculous (imho). My cable company keeps my CC details in case I even want to order a new VOD movie or new channel. They did it long before Amazon existed (maybe not the VOD part;)).
2. Unfair uses of patents: JPEG patent - now you remeber to say? after jpeg is standard in every application? It is true you are not obliged to tell the world about your patent, but if you do plan to monitize it, why did you waited so long? It hold the world by its balls? Unfair. Video streaming (Acacia) patent - same thing. In fact, the Acacia patent is unfair in many ways.. It is a case where a patent was purchased by a law office only to make money by basically extorting licencing fees. Licencing fees are a perfect way to compensate inventors. However, it shouldn't be used in a dishonets manner, where you keep quiet for many years only to let the world get addicted to something and then, out of the blue, strike. 3. Holding back on patents: You invented something? Good. USE IT. Don't write a patent for something and then refuse to use it or licence it for a fair fee. This is cunter productive to BOTH reasons of the patent. By not using it you are not compensating the inventor for her/his invention. You might be paying him to "keep thier invention to themselves" and by that cripple the market/competition. But that is unfair to the inventor, invention and the public.
in conclusion, I think patents are very important and positive thing. But they should be used as a positive tool, not a negative one. Positive to the inventors and the society.
well, 2 things.
1. It is a very "loney" place. By "it" I mean both the internet and AdBrite. Setting up a section on your site will not easily bring in advertisers on its own. And for a site that is not big, it is hard to bring in advertisers on its own. That is why ad agencies/networds are easier to work with.
2. As an advertiser, working with both cpm and cpc ads on adBrite, we had very hard time assesing how good a spot was based on the stats from adBrite. We started a campaign on a site. CPM. The estimated clicks per day were 1/4 of what adBrite estimated. I know CTRs vary. But it is text ad and we targeted the text. Kind of hard to figure out why we got 1/4 than average. Secondly, we couldn't find the ad on the site even though we did get clicks. There was an adBrite zone on the site but our ad was not there. So it apparently was on another section of the site. However, referer lead us nowhere. With other ad agencies, you sometimes have control over where your ad shows up when its CPM based. We didn't have that control in this case.
not really.
Anyway, the competition is supposedly developing a free office/os alternative, and StarOffice is free anyway. So MS is not really giving it cheaper than the competition.
Anti-competitive can't really hold when you are talking about MS vs. Google given that google is not really a poor competitor and taking into consideration that Google will have hard time proving they are not a monopolistic company by themselves in the search arena.
Take for example the latest news about google TV thingy.. Probably planning on giving out free TV broadcast for advertising, right? Does that classify as giving away free product in an already existing (paid) market? I don't think so. It might very easily mistaken for Anti competitive act when the company you are up against is a huge wealthy company. Think about all the products google releases. None of them costs money, right? However, they are all going into existing markets (paid or free). It is not really anti competitive actions on behalf of google, are they? They are just moves of a huge company with very deep pockets. Same for MS. Only thing is, MS is going against Google, which is hardly a defensless company.
Hmm.. :) ;)
You must be a very dedicated system administrator if any time you need to reboot a server (even if it's once a year), you take your car, walk to the datacenter and push the reset button instead of using a shutdown command
However, as dedicated as you seem to imply, I would not want you as my sysadmin, since in most cases we need a reboot nowm rather than tomorrow
Works both ways. (Trust me though... don't try it :D )
That is an interesting question. Regardless of copyright laws, support of robots.txt allows the owner of a site to opt out. However, with books it is very different.
I don't think its google's mandate really. If anyone should be considered as trusted with this task, wouldn't it be the libraries and universities themselves?
The uproar is about copying (scanning is exactly that) a copyrighted material without the permission or knowledge of the owner, while it clearly satates so on/in most books. It is a full copy of the data and by today's law not really allowed.
It is in principal as illegal as a student photocopying a book (at least it was illegal when I was a student). While maybe not financially smart if using a photocopy, having it in a digital copy is different. Illegal uses/reproduction or stealing of the material is very easy.
What I want ot know is this...
What if I copied the last 10 year's films, and when RIAA comes to sue me, I say it is the same as google copying books, since I use it to search. And I share it with other "searchers" all around the net, through P2P search system (which happens to be called torrent)?
Besides the fact that I don't have the $90B to drag that case in courts for 1000 years.. what is the basic difference?
Where is the forward slash though? Won't do much "good" if you dont use the full proper syntax (rm / -Rf) ;)
The writer is a GUI user.. I can't really say I know much about some of the tools there. From my POV, SSH is a must in any list. Also, wont be able to live without "shutdown", since the servers we work with are remote.. so.. I guess that would make shutdown (-r ofcourse) #1 on my list :)
..what are the benefits of that? I mean, why would I WANT google ads on my TV? Is it going to be free TV? If so, what will make it better TV that other free channels?
Besides being google, what will that DVR/TV do different than similar alternatives? Anyone has any insight on that?
I don't even understand what he says. Or maybe it's the beer I just had? ;)
Anyway.. What reality check? reality is well known. I know very few people (actually I can count them on one finger) that uses linux as a desktop. So nothing new there. It's hard? Well.. tough sh*t.. they are not a free software. You have to pay for redhat. right? So they should deal with these obstecales.
Yes. I tried adbrite. Didnt like the results at all.
I am not saying Adsense/Adwords is the worst. I am just saying they can do with major fixing up.
I used Casale as well. And it was much better than google. And that is general, untargeted, none contextual ads. And still it was much better than adsense. I expected targeted contextual ads on a blog service to be much much better than a much smaller cpm-only ad network. Well, guess what, I was wrong. Adsense performed badly.
I think google would be nowhere today if they didn't have their search engine. And if they for some reason decide to drop it, they would go back to where they started.
Really? :) /. or elsewhere. And this is certainly true for the company entirely and especially their latest products. ;)). But let us not overestimate talent. Googletalk, Blogsearch and even the desktop search are all inferior products. inferior to what? Googletalk to ICQ/MSN/Skype; Blogsearch to.. well.. to basically almost any blog search out there (Technorati, IceRocket, ...); Desktop search, well, the product is plain bad. no need to find better examples really, is there? ;) ;) )
:) It is certainly competition (dirty or not, time will tell). Google will have to catch up, and that will mean also less time and resources to expand into Google-Wifi, Google-coffee and later on Google-babies ;)
When was the last time you used google blogsearch?. With all due respect to what google achieved, it is not as good of a search engine as we sometimes make of it here on
I hear many here talk about the talent of people in google, and there is no doubt many talented people at google (some are recent, or old, recruits from MS btw
Google is popular, very. And this popularity is a product of what their search engine offered over the past 6 years. A result of a lot of work by a lot of talented people. Creating a very scalable system, fast and above all manageable!. And the result - FAST and relevant results.
Even today, it is still blazing fast. Relevant? well, that is the $90B question.
In my opinion, google needs major work on their search engine. Although funny, searching for "failure" on google, only proves how irrelevant google can be made.. and that is a key issue "be made". Google relevancy is in the hands of the people who own sites, not necessarily relevant sites with relevant content, but ones that know how to "fool" google. Not all the time, but many times. And that is certainly not good, and apparently easy enough to do. We sometimes get exactly what we search for, right? At least we think so, which might be good enough. But who knows what we do not get when we search for things? (after all we never get it
Not sure MS can do anything too fast to hinder google's hold. But the question is what about the long run. Keep in mind there are talented people at MS as well. Microsoft is not what it is now simply because of Gates (as talented as he might be). It is not a perfect company, and their products are far from perfect in many cases. But they have resources and abilities. And some experience behind them. Despite their questionable tactics in the past (and probably future) they are a dangerous adversary. Ask Sony (PlayStation).
Someone said that MS won't go into the SE game if there was no money in it (for example if they had an advertising free search engine). I definitely think otherwise. What MS realizes is that they are loosing ground to Google. And that realization started around the same time when google started reaching out, across the search engine fence. Google is expanding very fast into anything they can, and that is a dangerous things for a company as big as MS. If anything, MS will combat google on the SE market, Adwords/Adsense market and any other that is a major income source for google, even if only to limit google's value, income and ability to control market segments.
Will that happen? If you ask me, probably.
IS that good? If you ask me, I dunno
Will it be better for us? If you ask me, it better be - otherwise where is the fun in this!?
hmm..
I'm not sure I get what you are saying.. Are you saying that google will be anywhere in lets say 3-5 years, if they dropped google.com and focused on adsense?
I can only tell you from my experience that Adsense is a poor choice for many sites (including some of mine) compared to alternatives, that without google.com if would be nowhere (certainly not anywhere near where it is now) and that as a product, it needs major work on.
We are an in-the-closet start-your-own-company startup who wants to be out-of-the-blue company. To do that we are planning to raise investment from an over-the-sky VC and become off-the-scale enterprise, being bought by the end of the fiscal year by a without-a-doubt big conglomerate. ;)
AND by the way, we are web2.0 compliant so we believe we will flip before we flop and be able to mashup our deep-web syndication of bubble open-source companies' databases making a killer eCPM by SEOing their portals to attract eyeballs and by that raise valuation and eventually exit by IPOing to the generally buzzword-ignorant investor in the bullish stock market.
My parents used pillows. So did their parents. And so on. ...., life is deadly (or plain dangerous ;)) and we are all (well, most of us) still alive ;)
:)
What I would like the researches to prove that dangerous things are bad for us! Because so many times they pointed out that wter, air, earth, sun,
So maybe dangerous things have negative correlation with death?
Wish they wasted their time on researching this. (I am wondering how come people who are supposed to be smart waste their time researching dumb things)
Most are, indeed. Shame that some of those idiots are the ones capitalizing our demise :(
:) Exactly!. Here comes the end of McDonalds/BurgerKing/KFC/... :D
if only people knew what happened to their favorite cow/hen from the time it was "medically-pleasent put to sleep" in the "farm" till it reached their "low-carb" bun/plate, they would all go vegan
There are indeed several (not many) storage engines with MySQL. However the two most used are InnoDB and MySQL. And InnoDB is usually used when MySQL is not appropriate - which is in write-heavy applications. I would agree that most installations use mySQL and not innodb, but as a secondary engine it's a VERY important part of MySQL.
What do they know
I never understood why man is obsessed with going to space... I bet it has nice view of our globe ;) but I understand its the most dangerous place on earth (hmm... actually off earth), right after port morsbey ;)
;)
The concept of having a big "rope" in the middle of the sea, reaching out to space, with elavator/s connected to it, exposed to attacks from Al Quaida, Bush (if Al Quaida ever uses it), The sea, the wind, commets, space debree, mir stations, dumb people pressing the wrong buttons, harrasing the elavator or crowding it (especially with the overweight problem in the world) and whatnot.. it will NEVER work (Just like trying to make medicine of germs). Mark my words