I don't see that happening before we'd it coming from the horizon a long time before. You don't beat Google as a search engine over night, even if you've got the coolest possible algorithms.
lol, I know you're taking the piss, but I think that to anyone, unconditionality implies an expectation of continuity and consistency with what is known and what can be expected. If you look at things this way then nothing's strictly unconditional, the conditions are limited to an implicit limited reasonable set of expectations.
You realise that for something to be a classic it has to break some new ground. A good vulgarisation work can hardly become a classic, mostly not as it becomes outdated and fails to gain any historical importance by not being "groundbreaking".
Well, I wouldn't switch away from Google no matter what, but if you see this more as "basic" research, eventually if it eventually turns out to be superior then you can be sure that Google will buy it and integrate it to its search service.
So while concurrencing Google directly is futile, such research can participate to ultimately improve it, and put a few millions in the creator's pocket.
It's flawed to point out that the iPhone is very expensive when it's a phone. The iTouch does anything else and is much cheaper, that's a better comparison.
Yeah well, this is an analogy, not a strict Huffman coding. That's because we're intelligent people and not rigid algorithms. The analogy is still valid though.
Yes, but the point is, just like Huffman coding will give smaller codes to the more frequent symbols, in the case of text messaging the more frequent and common words or even expressions will get the shortest abbreviations. Entire expressions such as "I've got to go" or "I'll talk to you later" become g2g and ttyl for example. If "ttyl" was much less common it'd probably be written "tlk 2 u latr", but it gets its very own 4 letter abbreviation because it's so common. Whereas if you want to say something much less common, chances are there are no commonly recognised abbreviations for it, so you have to spell more of it out.
No what he means (I think) is that the more frequently occurring words (overall) take the fewer characters, hence acting as a sort of Huffman coding. Which is what people actually do when they frequently use tightly packed txt codes.
Wouldn't that depend on the Huffman coding you'd use on those sets of characters? Surely you'd want to use that at some point because some characters are much more frequent than others?
Although it would ruin the concept of a known fixed message length...
Happens to me all the time when I search through newsgroups I used to post too. Then I read a post and think "Holy shit, this moron needs a fucking clue" then look at the author and "Oh shit that was me in 2005!".
But how does the concurrence do it? Vimeo? MetaCafe? DailyMotion? Surely one of them must be _not_ losing money.
Plus, it's important to keep in mind that there's very little that makes YouTube better than Vimeo, if anything at all besides being the defacto leader. Sounds to me like YouTube is at a moment where it could lose to a concurrent who's ready to take the #1 spot just like MySpace lost to Facebook a few years ago.
I wouldn't say it's sexism, I'd just say that it highlights how fundamentally different in function and nature nipples are perceived depending on the sex of the owner in our society.
You can read more about it in my new sociological thesis, Nipples: the Taboo on Your Chest.
You're right, I think that answers my question. Unless... could an hypothetical contender make his OS compatible with XP drivers? The way I see it, an aggressive challenger set out to eat Microsoft's piece of the pie would try to succeed where Microsoft is failing on the backwards compatibility by supporting stuff the hard way, i.e. a better "XP mode" based on a better VM than Virtual PC (not that hard) or even Wine, some compatibility layer with Windows drivers and so forth, until it beats Microsoft at being Windows, both by being a better OS, by being fundamentally unrelated and therefore "fix" the virus problem and by supporting the old stuff that everyone cares about not through legacy code but through virtualisation, emulation, compatibility layers..
There's just one problem with that idea : there are two reasons why MS still dominates, one of them is that people don't want to drop it because it runs every programs they ever needed. Kill backwards compatibility and suddenly it's no more an extra burden to move over to an alternative. In such a scenario it would be an opportunity for anyone else to attack and make people switch.
By the way, in my mind there is something seriously lacking in the OS market. Very basically, you have the declining commercial giant, Windows, the distant (in that it works on specific machines only) alternative in Mac OS X, and the free alternative(s) in Linux/Ubuntu. In my mind the OS market lacks a sharp teethed who would push yet another commercial OS to replace Windows and who'd be aggressive about trying to push Microsoft down the hill and take its place.
The Windows giant is weakening and all you have to help it fall is the "here have my OS for free" Linux guys and the "sell your $200 computer and buy our $1,500 computers instead" Apple guys. There's definitely something missing here, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a challenger appear within the next 5 years.
Slashdot Mirror
I still don't see how a vulgarisation work can become a classic. Feel free to point to examples in the field.
Muahaha. Don't worry, if something like that was ever to happen, we'd get clues long before.
ITT, gits taking everything literally and being anal about it.
Example please.
I don't see that happening before we'd it coming from the horizon a long time before. You don't beat Google as a search engine over night, even if you've got the coolest possible algorithms.
lol, I know you're taking the piss, but I think that to anyone, unconditionality implies an expectation of continuity and consistency with what is known and what can be expected. If you look at things this way then nothing's strictly unconditional, the conditions are limited to an implicit limited reasonable set of expectations.
lol... How naive.
Right, you realise that being better at searching than Google takes a little more than just a good search algorithm, right?
Oh noes, Pigeonhole Man has struck again!
Right, I'm a fanboy, it has nothing to do that no serious superior alternative is going to pop up within the foreseeable future.
You realise that for something to be a classic it has to break some new ground. A good vulgarisation work can hardly become a classic, mostly not as it becomes outdated and fails to gain any historical importance by not being "groundbreaking".
Well, I wouldn't switch away from Google no matter what, but if you see this more as "basic" research, eventually if it eventually turns out to be superior then you can be sure that Google will buy it and integrate it to its search service.
So while concurrencing Google directly is futile, such research can participate to ultimately improve it, and put a few millions in the creator's pocket.
It's flawed to point out that the iPhone is very expensive when it's a phone. The iTouch does anything else and is much cheaper, that's a better comparison.
Yeah well, this is an analogy, not a strict Huffman coding. That's because we're intelligent people and not rigid algorithms. The analogy is still valid though.
Yes, but the point is, just like Huffman coding will give smaller codes to the more frequent symbols, in the case of text messaging the more frequent and common words or even expressions will get the shortest abbreviations. Entire expressions such as "I've got to go" or "I'll talk to you later" become g2g and ttyl for example. If "ttyl" was much less common it'd probably be written "tlk 2 u latr", but it gets its very own 4 letter abbreviation because it's so common. Whereas if you want to say something much less common, chances are there are no commonly recognised abbreviations for it, so you have to spell more of it out.
No what he means (I think) is that the more frequently occurring words (overall) take the fewer characters, hence acting as a sort of Huffman coding. Which is what people actually do when they frequently use tightly packed txt codes.
Wouldn't that depend on the Huffman coding you'd use on those sets of characters? Surely you'd want to use that at some point because some characters are much more frequent than others?
Although it would ruin the concept of a known fixed message length...
Yes, invade, fuck diplomacy, international influence, international laws, sanctions...
Death to the evil empire of Luxembourg!
Happens to me all the time when I search through newsgroups I used to post too. Then I read a post and think "Holy shit, this moron needs a fucking clue" then look at the author and "Oh shit that was me in 2005!".
But how does the concurrence do it? Vimeo? MetaCafe? DailyMotion? Surely one of them must be _not_ losing money.
Plus, it's important to keep in mind that there's very little that makes YouTube better than Vimeo, if anything at all besides being the defacto leader. Sounds to me like YouTube is at a moment where it could lose to a concurrent who's ready to take the #1 spot just like MySpace lost to Facebook a few years ago.
I wouldn't say it's sexism, I'd just say that it highlights how fundamentally different in function and nature nipples are perceived depending on the sex of the owner in our society.
You can read more about it in my new sociological thesis, Nipples: the Taboo on Your Chest.
Not to drift further off topic but even when you look at porn for a couple of hours it loses its tent-raising qualities, even when it's quality porn.
Call me when they pay me to view porn _and_ read Slashdot.
Maybe CmdrTaco could use a helping hand with getting rid of the goatse links?
You're right, I think that answers my question. Unless... could an hypothetical contender make his OS compatible with XP drivers? The way I see it, an aggressive challenger set out to eat Microsoft's piece of the pie would try to succeed where Microsoft is failing on the backwards compatibility by supporting stuff the hard way, i.e. a better "XP mode" based on a better VM than Virtual PC (not that hard) or even Wine, some compatibility layer with Windows drivers and so forth, until it beats Microsoft at being Windows, both by being a better OS, by being fundamentally unrelated and therefore "fix" the virus problem and by supporting the old stuff that everyone cares about not through legacy code but through virtualisation, emulation, compatibility layers..
There's just one problem with that idea : there are two reasons why MS still dominates, one of them is that people don't want to drop it because it runs every programs they ever needed. Kill backwards compatibility and suddenly it's no more an extra burden to move over to an alternative. In such a scenario it would be an opportunity for anyone else to attack and make people switch.
By the way, in my mind there is something seriously lacking in the OS market. Very basically, you have the declining commercial giant, Windows, the distant (in that it works on specific machines only) alternative in Mac OS X, and the free alternative(s) in Linux/Ubuntu. In my mind the OS market lacks a sharp teethed who would push yet another commercial OS to replace Windows and who'd be aggressive about trying to push Microsoft down the hill and take its place.
The Windows giant is weakening and all you have to help it fall is the "here have my OS for free" Linux guys and the "sell your $200 computer and buy our $1,500 computers instead" Apple guys. There's definitely something missing here, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a challenger appear within the next 5 years.
I don't really mind, I only drink Coca Cola.
I however hope showering in lithium will make my skin smooth or something.
The problem isn't researchers, it's the way the press reports their research.