Programmers don't really hate JavaScript, we just yell at it like we do any other programming language when we can't easily do something that we want done easily, like searching substrings. In truth, JavaScript is a great tool that allows the ability to create powerful webapps that have the look and feel of traditional standalone apps, and anyone who says the genuinely hate it is either lying due to anger at something related to it, or don't use it enough to understand its usefulness.
I take a middle-ground policy at my company.
I run IT for my company, and users do not have unlimited access to their machines. They can't change system settings, and they can't do anything with the system partition. However, I do not restrict the installation of programs, or the changing of personal settings, nor do I viciously monitor web traffic or block websites. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.
However, you must remember that I am allowed to do this by my superiors because there have not been problems in the past. If it was discovered that employees were spending a better part of their day surfing the 'net, I guarantee my boss would tell me to lock down and block a lot of websites.
IT may have a lot of leeway generally, but some decisions come from above.
The SECOND argument I made, and the one you are referring to, was not claiming Google had any fault in the financial aspect of the decision to stop using them, but merely explaining in more detail my decision. The primary motivator was the frustration over the evident click fraud, but another contributing factor, which was in no way Google's fault, was that the return wasn't large enough to warrant continued use. The problem was, about 90% resulted in sign-ups for the free version of my service, which is supported through AdWords, ironically.
My argument about the problem with click-fraud still stands, however. A large company can absorb a certain amount of click-fraud, and simply make its argument to Google, and hopefully have the issue resolved, but even if it is not resolved (as mine wasn't), it can still be absobed by a larger company. A start-up does not have such a luxury. That isn't Google's fault, it's just something I've learned from all this.
That wouldn't work financially, however, because the cost to just ENABLE search ads (much less have them appear high on the list) is generally ridiculous (except for very obscure search terms), usually on the order of $5-$25 per click, which wouldn't even be worth it if 1 out of every 2 clicks resulted in a pay sign-up. Basically, what I learned from this is: Google advertising is not really for start-ups. You need to have a certain amount of cash to spend on advertising before launching a campaign, because you WILL be paying a decent amount of money to non-genuine traffic.
I did report the problem, and they said they would investigate. Nothing came of it, and I determined it was much easier to just cancel my campaigns, especially considering that even the clicks that did seem legitimate still did not return a profit, with about 1 pay sign-up per 40 clicks, which, at $9.99 per pay signup and $1.00 (average) per click, it wasn't worth it in the long run.
I know that I don't fully trust AdSense. I used to use AdSense, but stopped when I kept paying lots of money for ads continuously clicked from a select number of website (don't remember the URLs off the top of my head, and I don't feel like scouring my logs right now) that never went anywhere after the initial click. It was a click, then leave, over and over and over again, hundreds of times. It was obvious someone was clicking just to get their sites money from AdWords, but I still had to pay every click. So, I payed what was owed and cancelled all my campaigns, and haven't been back since.
Dude, that doesn't even make sense. He wasn't talking about which current OS has the most market share, he was talking about STANDARD, as in: "The practice of computer science DEFINES an operating system as [X]". I don't necessarily agree with him (I don't), but that is what he was talking about. It doesn't matter how much market share Windows has, if it isn't doing what an operating system is supposed to do, then it's not following the standards of OSes. This is basic computer science.
I'm WAY over 32 GB of apps... WAAAYYY! My OS/Apps account for about 145 GB of space, with another 280 GB of just... stuff. Yeah, I think you're just generalizing based on personal experience, which is always a dangerous thing to do with technoloygy.
Except it seems to me that they lose MORE on nickels than pennies... Why not just ditch coins altogether? The answer is the same reason why we won't be completed cash-less for a long, long time: They're too useful. It's fast, convenient, and accepted everywhere, and are tangible (their value can't be lost because of a computer crash). Coins and bills aren't going anywhere for a while. Someday, it will probably happen, as technology becomes more reliable and internet truly ubiquitous, but for now, it won't happen.
While I agree that sexual offenders do leave permanent scars on their victims, I find it someone repulsive that you think people just "move on and all is more or less well" after a loved one is murdered (or even just assaulted). There is often very long lasting psychological effects of having something to violent and dramatic happen to someone you care for.
I just do not understand this at all. How can e-voting have such high error rates, and such problems? The code responsible for these programs should not be complicated. It's basically just incrementing numbers based upon a selected candidate. Where is the complication? Maybe I'm just not meant to understand.
Man, why is everyone so polar with people? The desktop OS will not be becoming just a browser. It's that simple. Too many people (like most corporations, for example) do not want their applications hosted on some far away server, and people who have the highest security needs will NEVER allow their apps to be hosted on any machine accessible via a basic internet connection (and no, SSL is not sufficient for, say, equities lending companies). These people want LOCAL software, hosted on internal machines.
Some people LOVE the idea of having truly mobile apps, and for those specific people a new market has emerged: Web-based apps. And that market is growing. BUT, that is all it is: A new market. And just like any other new market, it won't be overtaking ALL other computer software markets, or at the least, not for a long, long, long time. Why? Because not everyone wants that market, so companies will continue developing for all the markets they can to maximize profit, and that includes desktop apps.
I must say, I am not easily impressed, but this has impressed me. I'm not jumping for joy or anything, but the ease of manipulation and the ability to use many different points of contact is definately intriguing if it's portable enough.
Sure they do. Especially ones that see that the FF market is not stagnant at 10%, but rather growing steadily. Plus, for niche markets, 10% is sufficient.
Now, of course no major corporations are going to revamp their company websites to use technology only available to 10% of their potential market, but a small, start-up company would certainly write a web-based app that works for only 10% of the market if that app is so much more better because of the tech being used.
I never use internet kiosks where you have to pay to use the systems. Ever. I can not for the life of me fathom a circumstance where I couldn't just wait until I got home to check something online. Bank account balance? ATM. E-mail? Mobile phone, or just be patient and wait.
Amen! I think it's about time we all stopped being so friggin' lazy and stand up for ourselves a little more. Stop whining on a message board, and actually ACCOMPLISH something: Write e-mails to your congressman, write letters to your newspapers, make websites, make phone calls, get the word out... Until people know, they can't act, and if you know, you should feel compelled to ensure others know, too.
That is frightening and only reinforces my belief that the USPTO needs to either be dissolved and new organization put in its place with a much more rigid set of guidelines and a collection of experts to determine patent granting, or the current USPTO needs to be completely revamped to include expert-level opinions, especially in the area of technology. AND patents lengths need to be shortened for computer-related technologies. 20 year patents sound like a good timeframe for something relatively static, but in the field of computers, 20 years is practically an eternity! There really wasn't even much personal computing to speak of 20 years ago!
I've been here for a while, and I am genuinely worried about this eventually causing problems with my site, and even legal problems. If the inclusion of the links bothers you, a mod can remove them, and I won't mind one bit.
I have been running a small, start-up business called Infinience which will specialize in content management applications, and my debut program is called Student Manager, which is a content management application designed for students... I wonder how long before Blackboard tries to contact me...
But certainly not very soon. Red Hat has a serious server presence, and even with its debacles in the home, it still has a sizable hold on the home-based Linux market. While Ubunut is climbing, it still has a long way to go... But maybe someday...
Slashdot Mirror
You know what causes me lots of rage? MySpace. I hate that site! Yet, all my friends are on it...
I need new friends. Fuck MySpace!
Programmers don't really hate JavaScript, we just yell at it like we do any other programming language when we can't easily do something that we want done easily, like searching substrings. In truth, JavaScript is a great tool that allows the ability to create powerful webapps that have the look and feel of traditional standalone apps, and anyone who says the genuinely hate it is either lying due to anger at something related to it, or don't use it enough to understand its usefulness.
I take a middle-ground policy at my company. I run IT for my company, and users do not have unlimited access to their machines. They can't change system settings, and they can't do anything with the system partition. However, I do not restrict the installation of programs, or the changing of personal settings, nor do I viciously monitor web traffic or block websites. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. However, you must remember that I am allowed to do this by my superiors because there have not been problems in the past. If it was discovered that employees were spending a better part of their day surfing the 'net, I guarantee my boss would tell me to lock down and block a lot of websites. IT may have a lot of leeway generally, but some decisions come from above.
The SECOND argument I made, and the one you are referring to, was not claiming Google had any fault in the financial aspect of the decision to stop using them, but merely explaining in more detail my decision. The primary motivator was the frustration over the evident click fraud, but another contributing factor, which was in no way Google's fault, was that the return wasn't large enough to warrant continued use. The problem was, about 90% resulted in sign-ups for the free version of my service, which is supported through AdWords, ironically.
My argument about the problem with click-fraud still stands, however. A large company can absorb a certain amount of click-fraud, and simply make its argument to Google, and hopefully have the issue resolved, but even if it is not resolved (as mine wasn't), it can still be absobed by a larger company. A start-up does not have such a luxury. That isn't Google's fault, it's just something I've learned from all this.
That wouldn't work financially, however, because the cost to just ENABLE search ads (much less have them appear high on the list) is generally ridiculous (except for very obscure search terms), usually on the order of $5-$25 per click, which wouldn't even be worth it if 1 out of every 2 clicks resulted in a pay sign-up. Basically, what I learned from this is: Google advertising is not really for start-ups. You need to have a certain amount of cash to spend on advertising before launching a campaign, because you WILL be paying a decent amount of money to non-genuine traffic.
I did report the problem, and they said they would investigate. Nothing came of it, and I determined it was much easier to just cancel my campaigns, especially considering that even the clicks that did seem legitimate still did not return a profit, with about 1 pay sign-up per 40 clicks, which, at $9.99 per pay signup and $1.00 (average) per click, it wasn't worth it in the long run.
I know that I don't fully trust AdSense. I used to use AdSense, but stopped when I kept paying lots of money for ads continuously clicked from a select number of website (don't remember the URLs off the top of my head, and I don't feel like scouring my logs right now) that never went anywhere after the initial click. It was a click, then leave, over and over and over again, hundreds of times. It was obvious someone was clicking just to get their sites money from AdWords, but I still had to pay every click. So, I payed what was owed and cancelled all my campaigns, and haven't been back since.
I don't see any Microsoft fanboy-ism in the article. It sounds like he just wants peoples opinions of Microsoft for a school project.
Dude, that doesn't even make sense. He wasn't talking about which current OS has the most market share, he was talking about STANDARD, as in: "The practice of computer science DEFINES an operating system as [X]". I don't necessarily agree with him (I don't), but that is what he was talking about. It doesn't matter how much market share Windows has, if it isn't doing what an operating system is supposed to do, then it's not following the standards of OSes. This is basic computer science.
I'm WAY over 32 GB of apps... WAAAYYY! My OS/Apps account for about 145 GB of space, with another 280 GB of just... stuff. Yeah, I think you're just generalizing based on personal experience, which is always a dangerous thing to do with technoloygy.
While I posted above that we won't get rid of coins because coins and cash are much too useful, I do agree that the penny should go away.
Except it seems to me that they lose MORE on nickels than pennies... Why not just ditch coins altogether? The answer is the same reason why we won't be completed cash-less for a long, long time: They're too useful. It's fast, convenient, and accepted everywhere, and are tangible (their value can't be lost because of a computer crash). Coins and bills aren't going anywhere for a while. Someday, it will probably happen, as technology becomes more reliable and internet truly ubiquitous, but for now, it won't happen.
While I agree that sexual offenders do leave permanent scars on their victims, I find it someone repulsive that you think people just "move on and all is more or less well" after a loved one is murdered (or even just assaulted). There is often very long lasting psychological effects of having something to violent and dramatic happen to someone you care for.
I just do not understand this at all. How can e-voting have such high error rates, and such problems? The code responsible for these programs should not be complicated. It's basically just incrementing numbers based upon a selected candidate. Where is the complication? Maybe I'm just not meant to understand.
You can already do this. It's called virtualization. Check out http://www.softricity.com/ (which, as it seems, was bought by Microsoft).
Man, why is everyone so polar with people? The desktop OS will not be becoming just a browser. It's that simple. Too many people (like most corporations, for example) do not want their applications hosted on some far away server, and people who have the highest security needs will NEVER allow their apps to be hosted on any machine accessible via a basic internet connection (and no, SSL is not sufficient for, say, equities lending companies). These people want LOCAL software, hosted on internal machines.
Some people LOVE the idea of having truly mobile apps, and for those specific people a new market has emerged: Web-based apps. And that market is growing. BUT, that is all it is: A new market. And just like any other new market, it won't be overtaking ALL other computer software markets, or at the least, not for a long, long, long time. Why? Because not everyone wants that market, so companies will continue developing for all the markets they can to maximize profit, and that includes desktop apps.
I must say, I am not easily impressed, but this has impressed me. I'm not jumping for joy or anything, but the ease of manipulation and the ability to use many different points of contact is definately intriguing if it's portable enough.
Now all we need is an API.
Sure they do. Especially ones that see that the FF market is not stagnant at 10%, but rather growing steadily. Plus, for niche markets, 10% is sufficient.
Now, of course no major corporations are going to revamp their company websites to use technology only available to 10% of their potential market, but a small, start-up company would certainly write a web-based app that works for only 10% of the market if that app is so much more better because of the tech being used.
I never use internet kiosks where you have to pay to use the systems. Ever. I can not for the life of me fathom a circumstance where I couldn't just wait until I got home to check something online. Bank account balance? ATM. E-mail? Mobile phone, or just be patient and wait.
Oh God! Don't ever show those photos again!
Amen! I think it's about time we all stopped being so friggin' lazy and stand up for ourselves a little more. Stop whining on a message board, and actually ACCOMPLISH something: Write e-mails to your congressman, write letters to your newspapers, make websites, make phone calls, get the word out... Until people know, they can't act, and if you know, you should feel compelled to ensure others know, too.
That is frightening and only reinforces my belief that the USPTO needs to either be dissolved and new organization put in its place with a much more rigid set of guidelines and a collection of experts to determine patent granting, or the current USPTO needs to be completely revamped to include expert-level opinions, especially in the area of technology. AND patents lengths need to be shortened for computer-related technologies. 20 year patents sound like a good timeframe for something relatively static, but in the field of computers, 20 years is practically an eternity! There really wasn't even much personal computing to speak of 20 years ago!
I've been here for a while, and I am genuinely worried about this eventually causing problems with my site, and even legal problems. If the inclusion of the links bothers you, a mod can remove them, and I won't mind one bit.
I have been running a small, start-up business called Infinience which will specialize in content management applications, and my debut program is called Student Manager, which is a content management application designed for students... I wonder how long before Blackboard tries to contact me...
But certainly not very soon. Red Hat has a serious server presence, and even with its debacles in the home, it still has a sizable hold on the home-based Linux market. While Ubunut is climbing, it still has a long way to go... But maybe someday...