The way I see it the eventual replacement for facebook will end up resembling the blog market. I can get a server install wordpress and host my blog, or I can download anyone of the other thousand blog server apps. Or I can find a wordpress hosting company, or blogger.com or whatever. Multiple apps with multiple hosting options.
With myspace, friendster, and facebook a standard set of features are developing. With an interop protocol there is no reason why it can't be truly distributed.
I concur. I remember reading their article in Scientific American about link analysis and I wished there was a way for to stay apprised of the activity in the future. Alas, there was no google alerts at the time.
I think it was about a year later that google appeared on the scene. I am not sure if it took a year from the publication in SA until they launched, or if it just took that long for me to notice them.
At any rate, there were not just one in a pile. There is probably chart somewhere showing the rise of google and the collapse of most of the rest.
Don't think this will work. The problem is that we overshot our goal. For most of history life has been nasty brutish and short. It's only in the last couple hundred years with advances in sanitation, antibiotics and other wonders of the scientific revolution that our average lifespans have grown to what they are.
The problem is that we went to fast and didn't take the time to assess the nasty by-products of our rapid industrial advances.
I get so annoyed when I hear economic arguments made against slowing down and taking proper care. Fossil fuels have certainly made our lives more comfortable with a lot less back breaking labour required to meet our needs but civilization managed to progress for thousands of years before their use. Would it have been so bad if we waited an extra hundred years to ramp up their use? While that argument might sound funny looking backwards, look forward and think about genetically modified foods. What if we find out that some Monsanto gene has entered our germ lines that will end human reproduction within 5 more generations. How will today's arguments about competitive advantage or ending third world hunger sound in that context?
However, same sex marriage is like a square circle.
I gather your implying that it is an oxymoron like "military intelligence". Am I to suppose that you think this is funny?
I would posit that you are fully in favor of the government impeding the liberty of a serial killer stalking the high school that your teenage daughter goes to. Or the liberty of someone trying to blow up your local supermarket. Or....well the list goes on and I am sure you can use your imagination.
The point remains that anyone who claims to have a political preference will approve of some liberty reducing policies and be against others. Your original post implied that the left are some sort of freedom haters who want to nanny you with regulations whereas the right are freedom lovers who always protect individual rights. I think it is time that you admitted that this is an utterly false statement.
As for same sex marriage, same sex marriage is like a square circle.
See now I find that funny because here I am being what you would call a liberal thinking that the state has no business being involved in marriage at all. While you, whom I presume would call yourself a libertarian or conservative, seem to be in full favor of government impeding on the liberty of a couple of homosexuals.
I am sure with a very short amount of time I could find a dozen areas where you think the government has a right to interfere with someone personal liberty. So to claim that this is the sole domain of "progressives" is just self-serving hypocrisy.
You can go on misleading others, but I suggest to make an effort to not deceive yourself.
I would disagree. This is the standard retort of the right. Whenever anyone suggests policies to limit someones ability to screw me over (EPA, Consumer Protections, etc), they call it a limit on their liberty and freedom of contract. Yet when they want to limit someones ability to marry who they want or smoke what they want, they call it defense of tradition and family values.
So stand up Attila Dimedici and let us know that you are in favor of same sex marriages, legalized weed, and right to die. Or just admit your a hypocrite and move on.
Seriously, the fact that he thinks copying someone else's innovation is "job urgency 1" shows that he is not fit for his job. LEAD YOU MOFO! Find the interesting people in your organization that are trying cool things that other people are NOT doing and support them.
I have about 25 years in as well but I have had a totally different experience. First of all I started in data modeling with dBaseII and probably 80% of what I learned then has not changed (despite attempts by the noSQL crew). For me it has been pretty trivial to absorb new languages and libraries as they come along. From dBase/clipper, to DOA to ADOBD for example (dBase/access/sql). On the web the differences between PHP and ASP are fairly minor and if you use Javascript that's very close to a whole slew of other languages.
As for those job postings that list a ridiculous variety of "requirements*, I just look at what the project goal is. If I think I can deliver the goal using my tool set, then I apply for the job and show them why my way is the preferred way. Sure that doesn't work in some situations, but the more scatter shot the requirements the more likely that they don't know what the hell they are talking about.
But I will tell you what. If you can already speak normal human and have some business sense, then learning a bit of tech *may* help you to be able to translate client speak for an actual full time techie. IMHO there is a strong need for more project managers to manage freelance code monkey's. I had a client that ended up bring me other projects and acting as the project manager. After a few years we developed the ideal situation. He handled all the boring crap with the client. Even after taking his cut I made more money over all because he knew how to figure out what the project was worth to the client and billed up to that.
But my overall advice is don't bother unless you love this stuff, and if you do, dive in and forget about trying to dabble because you'll end up producing crap that will only impress your wife. (unless she is a geek;)
I disagree completely. A large head start is not an absolute defense in the long run. My money is on a distributed system in the long run. Face book is the anti-internet and must and will die because of it. I am betting that a set of protocols will be developed that will essentially extend blogs into Facebook like profiles and link them via a p2p system.
I mean really I don't see what the big deal is about face book, its basically weaving together multiple RSS feeds and a directory. These are not huge problems to solve. Ditto for the games. Just think about all those multiple player flash games that already exist on the net. Now imagine adopting a single sign on solution like OpenID.
But I have an alternative for Shotgun. If he doesn't like all this externalities stuff and evil faceless taxes, then how about he just be personally responsible for his airspace. (The mass of the atmosphere is about 5 × 10 18 kg not sure how much that is per person but I am guessing it alot of air.)
Got that Shotgun, you keep your share of the air to 350ppb and when you have done that you can rant about all the lazy irresponsible people who haven't cleaned up their air yet.
But what if you don't use fossil fuels? Then you paying for someone elses mess! That doesn't sound very fair. If only there was a way that people would only have to pay for the amount of GHG they create. Any ideas Shotgun?
Well if you live in the north you don't turn your engines off in the winter period. I am not talking about your family car, but about machines in industrial sites. The rule is to keeping them running because its too cold to start them again if they stop.
But down closer to the 49th it still easily hits -20 in Eastern BC or the prairies during the winter.
OK here is a hypothetical. Lets say I write a poem and share it with my neighbor by making a photocopy and saying to him, "here this is for you". Lets further say that 5 years later I decide that my poem reflects badly on me and I want to destroy it. After burning my copy I remember that I shared a copy with my neighbor.
a) Do I have a legal right to demand that he destroy his copy?
b) Do I have a moral right?
c) Is this the same as posting a picture on facebook and "sharing it" with my friends?
Well it's a hard thing to fix when you have "believers" involved. But IMHO if you want to discuss or teach creationism in your school do not do it in the science class. Discuss it in a humanities class. When pressed for "proof" of their beliefs religious types always fall back on "faith" as an answer. So unless you are going to remove the whole scientific method from your science classes creationism has no place there.
On the other hand, if you think there are problems with natural selection, then challenge and discuss those problems directly it has nothing to do with ID.
I agree, but you know how it goes if the Obama Admin gets blamed for things outside of its control doesn't it also get credit by the same rules? I know of course the answer depends on both which side of the fence your one, and which other side your talking about at the time:)
But sincerely now, it is entirely within the realm of possibility the the governing administration creates a culture and a wider political will that either enables or prevents these types of actions. For example, under GWB some functionary several layers away from the white house could probably get away with enacting faith based traffic laws, under Obama maybe not so likely.
Or you could simply turn it around and ask; could this have been done under the previous administration or would word have gotten out and the offending bureaucrat been shuffled out of position before this ever saw the light of day?
Personally I would give credit to the cultural of openness, common sense, and individual protection championed by this administration. So at least some credit is due.
There are two approaches that I use that involve a pattern that make it easy to remember, yet enough diversity that I am not using the same passwords over and over.
The first pattern is to have a common portion; "mypassword" in the example below, and a unique portion, in the example below the unique portion is the domain name of the site I am using the password to access.
mypassword@thisshittysite.com
mypassword@thisothershittysite.com
mypassword@yetanothershittysite.com
The shortest password in that list is 31 character long yet incredible easy to remember. The common portion of your password could be whatever you like to use or you could use two or three different ones but few enough to avoid getting locked out. So that we are not all doing the same thing, you can vary the ending portion. instead the actual domain name you could make it the name of the company, or drop the suffix, or use a different suffix just for this purpose. eg. god@yoursuckysite.password or l337@yoursuckyblog.password
We are getting trained to remember email address patterns why not leverage that.
There's just no way that we can have personal computers, cars, or even normal phones (pray you get to keep your cell phone, and forget about smartphones) using only renewable resources. Not going to happen.
Shhh...don't tell these guys. They are planning on spending $400 billion to prove you wrong.
Canadian Privacy Laws are getting better. Companies most disclose what information they are collecting, why they are collecting it, what they will do with it, who they will share it with, must provide you access to it, and more If a company changes a vendor in their supply web, they must inform you and re-acquire consent from you.
I think you will find that among advanced nations it is the USA who is out of step or lagging in this area.
Hi, I have been a database developer since ~1984. How about you contact me via http://www.lonecrow.com/.
Perhaps I can have a look at one or two of your queries and offer ways to improve their performance. If your happy with the results then maybe you can contract me for more help.
Good point, so instead of an automatic cut-off it is a series of escalating alerts that humans can act upon with the appropriate response.
Which still doesn't change the fact that you want to detect the attack in the first place which probably requires sensors and some form of monitoring. I don't think this automatically means that the program will or will have to violate civil liberties.
Hmmm...I am not sure if I would get all worked up over the name. This portion of the article seems to alleviate some concerns:
Some companies may agree to have the NSA put its own sensors on and others may ask for direction on what sensors to buy and come to an agreement about what data they will then share with the government, industry and government officials said.
I do not see this as akin to the mass wiretapping of individuals of a previous administration. This is traffic pattern detection by the sounds of it. So for example, if malicious patterns were detected perhaps an auto-cutoff of the plant from the internet could be triggered.
But perhaps another approach to this would be to ask you how you would go about protecting these assets from cyber-attack without violating civil liberties?
I am going to take a wild guess that it would involve monitoring broad and anonymous traffic patterns which is what this sounds like. Then if malicious patterns were detected due process would kick in to the investigation of any individuals involved.
Slashdot Mirror
The way I see it the eventual replacement for facebook will end up resembling the blog market. I can get a server install wordpress and host my blog, or I can download anyone of the other thousand blog server apps. Or I can find a wordpress hosting company, or blogger.com or whatever. Multiple apps with multiple hosting options.
With myspace, friendster, and facebook a standard set of features are developing. With an interop protocol there is no reason why it can't be truly distributed.
I concur. I remember reading their article in Scientific American about link analysis and I wished there was a way for to stay apprised of the activity in the future. Alas, there was no google alerts at the time.
I think it was about a year later that google appeared on the scene. I am not sure if it took a year from the publication in SA until they launched, or if it just took that long for me to notice them.
At any rate, there were not just one in a pile. There is probably chart somewhere showing the rise of google and the collapse of most of the rest.
Don't think this will work. The problem is that we overshot our goal. For most of history life has been nasty brutish and short. It's only in the last couple hundred years with advances in sanitation, antibiotics and other wonders of the scientific revolution that our average lifespans have grown to what they are.
The problem is that we went to fast and didn't take the time to assess the nasty by-products of our rapid industrial advances.
I get so annoyed when I hear economic arguments made against slowing down and taking proper care. Fossil fuels have certainly made our lives more comfortable with a lot less back breaking labour required to meet our needs but civilization managed to progress for thousands of years before their use. Would it have been so bad if we waited an extra hundred years to ramp up their use? While that argument might sound funny looking backwards, look forward and think about genetically modified foods. What if we find out that some Monsanto gene has entered our germ lines that will end human reproduction within 5 more generations. How will today's arguments about competitive advantage or ending third world hunger sound in that context?
What if the exception is voice (phone call)?
Prioritizing real time phone calls over other applications might not be a bad idea.
I gather your implying that it is an oxymoron like "military intelligence". Am I to suppose that you think this is funny?
I would posit that you are fully in favor of the government impeding the liberty of a serial killer stalking the high school that your teenage daughter goes to. Or the liberty of someone trying to blow up your local supermarket. Or....well the list goes on and I am sure you can use your imagination.
The point remains that anyone who claims to have a political preference will approve of some liberty reducing policies and be against others. Your original post implied that the left are some sort of freedom haters who want to nanny you with regulations whereas the right are freedom lovers who always protect individual rights. I think it is time that you admitted that this is an utterly false statement.
See now I find that funny because here I am being what you would call a liberal thinking that the state has no business being involved in marriage at all. While you, whom I presume would call yourself a libertarian or conservative, seem to be in full favor of government impeding on the liberty of a couple of homosexuals.
I am sure with a very short amount of time I could find a dozen areas where you think the government has a right to interfere with someone personal liberty. So to claim that this is the sole domain of "progressives" is just self-serving hypocrisy.
You can go on misleading others, but I suggest to make an effort to not deceive yourself.
I would disagree. This is the standard retort of the right. Whenever anyone suggests policies to limit someones ability to screw me over (EPA, Consumer Protections, etc), they call it a limit on their liberty and freedom of contract. Yet when they want to limit someones ability to marry who they want or smoke what they want, they call it defense of tradition and family values.
So stand up Attila Dimedici and let us know that you are in favor of same sex marriages, legalized weed, and right to die. Or just admit your a hypocrite and move on.
Seriously, the fact that he thinks copying someone else's innovation is "job urgency 1" shows that he is not fit for his job. LEAD YOU MOFO! Find the interesting people in your organization that are trying cool things that other people are NOT doing and support them.
I have about 25 years in as well but I have had a totally different experience. First of all I started in data modeling with dBaseII and probably 80% of what I learned then has not changed (despite attempts by the noSQL crew). For me it has been pretty trivial to absorb new languages and libraries as they come along. From dBase/clipper, to DOA to ADOBD for example (dBase/access/sql). On the web the differences between PHP and ASP are fairly minor and if you use Javascript that's very close to a whole slew of other languages.
;)
As for those job postings that list a ridiculous variety of "requirements*, I just look at what the project goal is. If I think I can deliver the goal using my tool set, then I apply for the job and show them why my way is the preferred way. Sure that doesn't work in some situations, but the more scatter shot the requirements the more likely that they don't know what the hell they are talking about.
But I will tell you what. If you can already speak normal human and have some business sense, then learning a bit of tech *may* help you to be able to translate client speak for an actual full time techie. IMHO there is a strong need for more project managers to manage freelance code monkey's. I had a client that ended up bring me other projects and acting as the project manager. After a few years we developed the ideal situation. He handled all the boring crap with the client. Even after taking his cut I made more money over all because he knew how to figure out what the project was worth to the client and billed up to that.
But my overall advice is don't bother unless you love this stuff, and if you do, dive in and forget about trying to dabble because you'll end up producing crap that will only impress your wife. (unless she is a geek
I disagree completely. A large head start is not an absolute defense in the long run. My money is on a distributed system in the long run. Face book is the anti-internet and must and will die because of it. I am betting that a set of protocols will be developed that will essentially extend blogs into Facebook like profiles and link them via a p2p system.
I mean really I don't see what the big deal is about face book, its basically weaving together multiple RSS feeds and a directory. These are not huge problems to solve. Ditto for the games. Just think about all those multiple player flash games that already exist on the net. Now imagine adopting a single sign on solution like OpenID.
Spun is spot on.
But I have an alternative for Shotgun. If he doesn't like all this externalities stuff and evil faceless taxes, then how about he just be personally responsible for his airspace. (The mass of the atmosphere is about 5 × 10 18 kg not sure how much that is per person but I am guessing it alot of air.)
Got that Shotgun, you keep your share of the air to 350ppb and when you have done that you can rant about all the lazy irresponsible people who haven't cleaned up their air yet.
But what if you don't use fossil fuels? Then you paying for someone elses mess! That doesn't sound very fair. If only there was a way that people would only have to pay for the amount of GHG they create. Any ideas Shotgun?
Well if you live in the north you don't turn your engines off in the winter period. I am not talking about your family car, but about machines in industrial sites. The rule is to keeping them running because its too cold to start them again if they stop.
But down closer to the 49th it still easily hits -20 in Eastern BC or the prairies during the winter.
Let's remember that while the officer may not have an expectation of privacy, the person he is talking to should.
I will concede the point.
OK here is a hypothetical. Lets say I write a poem and share it with my neighbor by making a photocopy and saying to him, "here this is for you". Lets further say that 5 years later I decide that my poem reflects badly on me and I want to destroy it. After burning my copy I remember that I shared a copy with my neighbor.
a) Do I have a legal right to demand that he destroy his copy?
b) Do I have a moral right?
c) Is this the same as posting a picture on facebook and "sharing it" with my friends?
Well it's a hard thing to fix when you have "believers" involved. But IMHO if you want to discuss or teach creationism in your school do not do it in the science class. Discuss it in a humanities class. When pressed for "proof" of their beliefs religious types always fall back on "faith" as an answer. So unless you are going to remove the whole scientific method from your science classes creationism has no place there.
On the other hand, if you think there are problems with natural selection, then challenge and discuss those problems directly it has nothing to do with ID.
I agree, but you know how it goes if the Obama Admin gets blamed for things outside of its control doesn't it also get credit by the same rules? I know of course the answer depends on both which side of the fence your one, and which other side your talking about at the time :)
But sincerely now, it is entirely within the realm of possibility the the governing administration creates a culture and a wider political will that either enables or prevents these types of actions. For example, under GWB some functionary several layers away from the white house could probably get away with enacting faith based traffic laws, under Obama maybe not so likely.
Or you could simply turn it around and ask; could this have been done under the previous administration or would word have gotten out and the offending bureaucrat been shuffled out of position before this ever saw the light of day?
Personally I would give credit to the cultural of openness, common sense, and individual protection championed by this administration. So at least some credit is due.
There are two approaches that I use that involve a pattern that make it easy to remember, yet enough diversity that I am not using the same passwords over and over.
The first pattern is to have a common portion; "mypassword" in the example below, and a unique portion, in the example below the unique portion is the domain name of the site I am using the password to access.
The shortest password in that list is 31 character long yet incredible easy to remember. The common portion of your password could be whatever you like to use or you could use two or three different ones but few enough to avoid getting locked out. So that we are not all doing the same thing, you can vary the ending portion. instead the actual domain name you could make it the name of the company, or drop the suffix, or use a different suffix just for this purpose. eg. god@yoursuckysite.password or l337@yoursuckyblog.password
We are getting trained to remember email address patterns why not leverage that.
Shhh...don't tell these guys. They are planning on spending $400 billion to prove you wrong.
abuse? I think you must be doing it wrong. Maybe try slowing down.
I was thinking that it was so they could implement some sort tie-in with facebook.
Canadian Privacy Laws are getting better. Companies most disclose what information they are collecting, why they are collecting it, what they will do with it, who they will share it with, must provide you access to it, and more If a company changes a vendor in their supply web, they must inform you and re-acquire consent from you.
I think you will find that among advanced nations it is the USA who is out of step or lagging in this area.
Hi, I have been a database developer since ~1984. How about you contact me via http://www.lonecrow.com/.
Perhaps I can have a look at one or two of your queries and offer ways to improve their performance. If your happy with the results then maybe you can contract me for more help.
Good point, so instead of an automatic cut-off it is a series of escalating alerts that humans can act upon with the appropriate response.
Which still doesn't change the fact that you want to detect the attack in the first place which probably requires sensors and some form of monitoring. I don't think this automatically means that the program will or will have to violate civil liberties.
I do not see this as akin to the mass wiretapping of individuals of a previous administration. This is traffic pattern detection by the sounds of it. So for example, if malicious patterns were detected perhaps an auto-cutoff of the plant from the internet could be triggered.
But perhaps another approach to this would be to ask you how you would go about protecting these assets from cyber-attack without violating civil liberties?
I am going to take a wild guess that it would involve monitoring broad and anonymous traffic patterns which is what this sounds like. Then if malicious patterns were detected due process would kick in to the investigation of any individuals involved.
Please share any better way you can think of?