Well god knows they have enough data on the entire world to implement ranking in a way that's weighted towards users similar to you (whether they've got people with the data mining skills to produce that kind of thing is another story - they're brilliant, but that's some damn tricky work). If was a simple vote-up/vote-down system, they could just use their existing organic results and maybe tint the background either slightly red or green for results that users tend to find less or more helpful (maybe using time-on-site data from their pool of analytics would be better, as pre-click votes are worthless and most people wouldn't go back to rank them after the fact).
If they can't automate it, they won't do it. IIRC there was some post a while back about them tweaking The Algorithm something like 3000 times a year, but they never blacklist sites or rankings by hand. These days it's probably as much for DMCA protection as anything else, but introducing a human element (that exists only within Google) is a bad idea for bias alone, never mind the actual labor overhead.
I'd say that it remains an interesting exercise, but should probably stay as such. I don't think all of the data mining in the world could successfully counter the collective stupidity of the human race.
Most websites don't even try pretending to be "fair and balanced". Though in Digg's case, it's really just demographics at work since it's entirely user-submitted crap. Slashdot is at the very least editor-skimmed, user-submitted crap (and a significantly wider age demographic, which often shows when the odd non-tech political argument comes up - this is obviously a giant echo chamber for tech politics).
Just consider... Digg's BitterOldGuy is probably 24.
I'd consider it on the line between indicating dishonesty and resourcefulness. He'd certainly make a great salesman, but I'd take that approach of doing your research and then applying it as a good thing. It's not like he was using it to cover up murdering someone with a guitar at a grunge concert, but rather it was just a little white lie to expose the genuine common interest.
True, but you can also put arbitrary tags in there. So someone could tag me in a photo linking to my profile and I could untag it, but they could also just put an arbitrary tag that doesn't link anywhere but still shows my name that I couldn't untag.
Granted it's a good amount harder to track someone down over FB if it's a text-only tag, but the information is still out there for the sufficiently determined to find.
Poison gas ? You think that's all an evil supercomputer will do ? NO ! It will spontaneously develop godlike powers, take over the universe and unravel the very fabric of reality around you !
VMs. In the plural. Nothing too heavy-use as they're mostly for testing, but there's no sense starving them. Plus my box operates as a file and web server. Though it's actually helpful when I'm doing heavy photoshop work - ultra-wide panorama stitching is just a horribly system-intense task. Not something I do on a daily basis, but being able to leave Lightroom, Photoshop, 3 VMs, about fifty tabs in Firefox, a slew of text editors and various web dev apps, a couple other browsers for testing, etc. open all day without worry or lag switching between them... it's nice. Interestingly, it seems to do very little for video encoding - though of all the apps I use, only one (Handbrake) seems to be properly threaded but even at 500% (63% total) CPU usage, it still takes next to no RAM.
Though to be honest, it's mostly because RAM is so damn cheap these days. FB-DDR2 is about the most expensive RAM out there other than gamer-oriented DDR3, and I still picked up an additional 8GB for less than I paid for 1GB of top-end DDR only a few years ago (around $300). I like the idea of 2GB per core (which is how I set up my VMs), but 16GB seemed way beyond overkill even by my standards, which as you can tell are way out there.
Overkill? Yes. Epenis? ++. But I can probably figure out some way to work it as a tax write-off, and the thing is definitely future-resistant.
Did you read my post? If you're not running hardware that's ten years old, it's not slower. At all.
Improvements? Vastly better security (yes, UAC sucks and I said that already, but it's still a start - on the whole, the attempt at UNIX-like permissions is solid although overdone) Start menu searching is probably the single most useful thing in Windows since the start menu itself Better UI, though I think they took a step backwards in how several things are organized IE6 no longer exists, which makes MY life better as a web developer if nothing else System searches are significantly faster
Etc.
And that's coming from a Mac fanboy. I know of a couple Vista fanboys if you'd like me to dig one up who can produce a hell of a list.
As someone who primarily works off of a Mac Pro with 10GB of RAM, I'll call BS on that one. With the exception of the completely broken nVidia drivers, Vista runs fine performance-wise on my old faithful desktop with about a fifth of the specs (now those drivers forced the system in question to go back to XP, but they were causing crashes, not slowdowns).
I'll agree that the ads suck (and I can't imagine why Hulu thinks that I'd switch from OS X to Windows... it just doesn't happen), but not because they're giving the people an unfair representation of Vista.
The UAC needs improvement; other than that and the above-mentioned driver issue, I'd run it on all of my vaguely-current non-Apple hardware.
I should think not. Assuming a text takes 1KB of data (just to make the numbers easy; it's probably not even a quarter of that), sending or receiving one text per second for a solid month would still consume under 2.7GB of data. An unlimited texting plan would cost me $20/mo, ~0.7c/MB if I did the math right, or about $7.50/GB.
What does your monthly cable/DSL connection cost? And what's your maximum theoretical throughput in a month? Because this would be a hundred bucks a month for dial-up, and with even lower reliability.
I'd say they've got a pretty solid profit margin. I certainly dare someone with an unlimited plan to send/receive 2.7M texts in a month, never mind not getting shot by their carrier. The most I've ever heard of was 30k/mo, well under a megabyte a day (though writing a little spambot script would take all of ten minutes and go well beyond that).
Anyways, I'd be supremely surprised if it cost them a thousandth of that.
A few onclick events and ajax calls do not make up an application. Something that requires heavy debugging does, and chances are you're reinventing the wheel if that's the case in Javascript (see: jQuery, MooTools, etc).
If you need to get a message to their phone immediately, you could... you know... call them. You've prepaid the voice minutes, might as well use them. I realize that pushing out a quick no-response-necessary message is sometimes easier over text than phone, but you don't know they got it (whereas if you speak with them, obviously they've received the message), no need to type out anything on those stupid keypads, no additional charge, etc.
Actually, in the US, both parties get charged. Granted you can send them for free by emailing phonenumber@carrier.com, but the only people doing that are companies like Facebook sending texts to their users' cell phones.
That only works when hiring skill-less drones in widget factories. As soon as a third-grade-equivalent education is required to do the job, people stop being immediately replaceable. Hell, even Starbucks has to train people on how to make 11,000 different types of coffee.
Everything is obvious in hindsight. We're really just bashing the fact that MS beat Mozilla to the punch on this one, where the opposite is almost always the case.
Probably, but which one is more stable? They can argue all they want, but the results still speak for themselves.
Obviously it's not impossible that the IE8 team acknowledged this. Not unlike people blasting a politician for changing his stance on an issue from something stupid to something good for the masses. It's like being of the opinion that mysql_query("SELECT * FROM users where id = {$_GET['id']}"); is a good idea - you're still just plain wrong. Sure, you avoid the overhead of calling a mysql_real_escape_string() first, but is the saved overhead worth the security tradeoff? Obviously not.
Granted, the different models of tab/window behavior within an application aren't quite that drastically different from each other, but if you want to boil it down to performance versus stability and security, it's the same basic argument.
And in this case, running each tab as its own process basically acts as free threading thanks to the advent and ubiquity of multi-core systems. It may take a little extra RAM, but that's offset by the parallelization. (Yes, I know that's vastly oversimplified and probably not even that accurate... you get the general idea)
Slashdot Mirror
Well god knows they have enough data on the entire world to implement ranking in a way that's weighted towards users similar to you (whether they've got people with the data mining skills to produce that kind of thing is another story - they're brilliant, but that's some damn tricky work). If was a simple vote-up/vote-down system, they could just use their existing organic results and maybe tint the background either slightly red or green for results that users tend to find less or more helpful (maybe using time-on-site data from their pool of analytics would be better, as pre-click votes are worthless and most people wouldn't go back to rank them after the fact).
If they can't automate it, they won't do it. IIRC there was some post a while back about them tweaking The Algorithm something like 3000 times a year, but they never blacklist sites or rankings by hand. These days it's probably as much for DMCA protection as anything else, but introducing a human element (that exists only within Google) is a bad idea for bias alone, never mind the actual labor overhead.
I'd say that it remains an interesting exercise, but should probably stay as such. I don't think all of the data mining in the world could successfully counter the collective stupidity of the human race.
Most websites don't even try pretending to be "fair and balanced". Though in Digg's case, it's really just demographics at work since it's entirely user-submitted crap. Slashdot is at the very least editor-skimmed, user-submitted crap (and a significantly wider age demographic, which often shows when the odd non-tech political argument comes up - this is obviously a giant echo chamber for tech politics).
Just consider... Digg's BitterOldGuy is probably 24.
Holy crap, +5 insightful? I like my karma as much as anyone else, so no complaints, but... huh?
I'd consider it on the line between indicating dishonesty and resourcefulness. He'd certainly make a great salesman, but I'd take that approach of doing your research and then applying it as a good thing. It's not like he was using it to cover up murdering someone with a guitar at a grunge concert, but rather it was just a little white lie to expose the genuine common interest.
You've clearly mis-interpreted "having". Or your company has an extremely unique method of dealing with irate customers.
Hi, George? I think you deserved that whole "miserable failure" thing, and whatever lack of future careers that entails.
True, but you can also put arbitrary tags in there. So someone could tag me in a photo linking to my profile and I could untag it, but they could also just put an arbitrary tag that doesn't link anywhere but still shows my name that I couldn't untag.
Granted it's a good amount harder to track someone down over FB if it's a text-only tag, but the information is still out there for the sufficiently determined to find.
No, more like people doing actual stupid shit (not a rickroll, promise).
It may also mock you with nonexistent cake.
He quite obviously meant "winning the lawsuit" by "success". Whether you get any significant amount of money from it is an entirely different matter.
VMs. In the plural. Nothing too heavy-use as they're mostly for testing, but there's no sense starving them. Plus my box operates as a file and web server. Though it's actually helpful when I'm doing heavy photoshop work - ultra-wide panorama stitching is just a horribly system-intense task. Not something I do on a daily basis, but being able to leave Lightroom, Photoshop, 3 VMs, about fifty tabs in Firefox, a slew of text editors and various web dev apps, a couple other browsers for testing, etc. open all day without worry or lag switching between them... it's nice. Interestingly, it seems to do very little for video encoding - though of all the apps I use, only one (Handbrake) seems to be properly threaded but even at 500% (63% total) CPU usage, it still takes next to no RAM.
Though to be honest, it's mostly because RAM is so damn cheap these days. FB-DDR2 is about the most expensive RAM out there other than gamer-oriented DDR3, and I still picked up an additional 8GB for less than I paid for 1GB of top-end DDR only a few years ago (around $300). I like the idea of 2GB per core (which is how I set up my VMs), but 16GB seemed way beyond overkill even by my standards, which as you can tell are way out there.
Overkill? Yes. Epenis? ++. But I can probably figure out some way to work it as a tax write-off, and the thing is definitely future-resistant.
Did you read my post? If you're not running hardware that's ten years old, it's not slower. At all.
Improvements?
Vastly better security (yes, UAC sucks and I said that already, but it's still a start - on the whole, the attempt at UNIX-like permissions is solid although overdone)
Start menu searching is probably the single most useful thing in Windows since the start menu itself
Better UI, though I think they took a step backwards in how several things are organized
IE6 no longer exists, which makes MY life better as a web developer if nothing else
System searches are significantly faster
Etc.
And that's coming from a Mac fanboy. I know of a couple Vista fanboys if you'd like me to dig one up who can produce a hell of a list.
Where's the ":" symbol on my keypad?
Must be 1. They always put the weird stuff on 1. 1-800-467-6913. Go figure.
Almost 94 continuous work days of phone sex. I feel terribly sorry for the janitor that cleans out his trash can.
As someone who primarily works off of a Mac Pro with 10GB of RAM, I'll call BS on that one. With the exception of the completely broken nVidia drivers, Vista runs fine performance-wise on my old faithful desktop with about a fifth of the specs (now those drivers forced the system in question to go back to XP, but they were causing crashes, not slowdowns).
I'll agree that the ads suck (and I can't imagine why Hulu thinks that I'd switch from OS X to Windows... it just doesn't happen), but not because they're giving the people an unfair representation of Vista.
The UAC needs improvement; other than that and the above-mentioned driver issue, I'd run it on all of my vaguely-current non-Apple hardware.
I should think not. Assuming a text takes 1KB of data (just to make the numbers easy; it's probably not even a quarter of that), sending or receiving one text per second for a solid month would still consume under 2.7GB of data. An unlimited texting plan would cost me $20/mo, ~0.7c/MB if I did the math right, or about $7.50/GB.
What does your monthly cable/DSL connection cost? And what's your maximum theoretical throughput in a month? Because this would be a hundred bucks a month for dial-up, and with even lower reliability.
I'd say they've got a pretty solid profit margin. I certainly dare someone with an unlimited plan to send/receive 2.7M texts in a month, never mind not getting shot by their carrier. The most I've ever heard of was 30k/mo, well under a megabyte a day (though writing a little spambot script would take all of ten minutes and go well beyond that).
Anyways, I'd be supremely surprised if it cost them a thousandth of that.
A few onclick events and ajax calls do not make up an application. Something that requires heavy debugging does, and chances are you're reinventing the wheel if that's the case in Javascript (see: jQuery, MooTools, etc).
If you need to get a message to their phone immediately, you could... you know... call them. You've prepaid the voice minutes, might as well use them. I realize that pushing out a quick no-response-necessary message is sometimes easier over text than phone, but you don't know they got it (whereas if you speak with them, obviously they've received the message), no need to type out anything on those stupid keypads, no additional charge, etc.
One. Great. What the hell are the rest of them doing?
Actually, in the US, both parties get charged. Granted you can send them for free by emailing phonenumber@carrier.com, but the only people doing that are companies like Facebook sending texts to their users' cell phones.
That only works when hiring skill-less drones in widget factories. As soon as a third-grade-equivalent education is required to do the job, people stop being immediately replaceable. Hell, even Starbucks has to train people on how to make 11,000 different types of coffee.
The terrorist isn't going to sue you.
Everything is obvious in hindsight. We're really just bashing the fact that MS beat Mozilla to the punch on this one, where the opposite is almost always the case.
Probably, but which one is more stable? They can argue all they want, but the results still speak for themselves.
Obviously it's not impossible that the IE8 team acknowledged this. Not unlike people blasting a politician for changing his stance on an issue from something stupid to something good for the masses. It's like being of the opinion that mysql_query("SELECT * FROM users where id = {$_GET['id']}"); is a good idea - you're still just plain wrong. Sure, you avoid the overhead of calling a mysql_real_escape_string() first, but is the saved overhead worth the security tradeoff? Obviously not.
Granted, the different models of tab/window behavior within an application aren't quite that drastically different from each other, but if you want to boil it down to performance versus stability and security, it's the same basic argument.
And in this case, running each tab as its own process basically acts as free threading thanks to the advent and ubiquity of multi-core systems. It may take a little extra RAM, but that's offset by the parallelization. (Yes, I know that's vastly oversimplified and probably not even that accurate... you get the general idea)
Well there's your problem...