Seriously, according to TFA, 1% of users use the "New Folder" command in Windows Explorer while a gobsmackingly large 6% of users use the "New Item" command. Seriously? Who creates a new Word doc this way??? Or Excel? Or anything else, for that matter? Stubbing out a blank document is non-sensical to me...and I'm apparently alone in that.
Seriously? I'm shocked, but in the opposite direction. Only 6% of users use "New Item"?
I use it all the time. Mostly to create new text files, which I rename to.xml or.sql or whatever bit of code I'm in. I also use it for new Office docs.
So what do you do? Fire up your editor or IDE, create a new document, then navigate to where you want it saved?
Guess it depends on where you are. If I have Word open. I'll use that app to create a new doc. But if I'm in the folder where I want the new doc? Why open up Word just to navigate back to the folder where I started? It's quicker to right-click, new Word doc, double click, and I'm there.
Rarely used features are more important to make visible, not less visible.. because people don't know they're there otherwise.
You realize that's insane, don't you?
Go in to your bathroom. Looks at the things on the counter around the sink. What do you see?
Hand soap? Toothbrush? Hair brush? Do you see the things you use every day?
Now kneel down and look in to the cabinet under the sink. What's in there? What's waaaay in the back? The stuff you haven't see in years.
Why isn't that stuff on the counter? That's the rarely used stuff, the stuff you forget about. Why don't you keep that where it's easy to find?
There are some exceptions. For example, a fire extinguisher. That's something which in most cases is rarely used, but you want it someplace easy to find in a hurry.
But for most things, the things we use the most should be quickest to find.
A few posts have mentioned all the data MS crunched to come up with the ribbon.
To that I say, so frackin' what? I don't care if 7 billion people are changing their line spacing options every day. That's not an option I use. In the old icon system, I could move the line spacing option off to the side, or remove it entirely, while the folks who use that option could keep it handy.
With the ribbon, it's all or nothing. If I don't like having the line spacing button front and center on my screen? I can hide the ribbon. I can't add or remove commands. I can't rearrange or regroup commands.
So it takes up more room and offers less functionality than the old icon toolbars.
Control+H is, and always has been, the shortcut for Replace.
Your shortcut keys haven't changed, save for a few exceptions which nearly no one used. I promise that you didn't either.
Then they added all of the Alt+Letter shortcut keys so that EVERY command on the ribbon now has a shortcut.
As for height, unless you've eliminated all but one row of toolbar icons, the Ribbon is no taller than what we had before with menus and toolbars.
I did not know that. I had always done Control+F to bring up the Find window and click over to the Replace tab. Now I have Control+H. I'm not afraid to learn new things.
But to say Control+F hasn't changed is false. Where it used to open that little window with the Find/Replace/Go To tabs, Control+F now opens up a pane on the left running the height of the document window.
What in FSM's name is MS doing with all these panes? Is there something wrong with me being able to see the document I'm working on?
Why the <REDACTED> do people keep spamming this "takes up screen real-estate" BS? Ever since the beta versions of Office 2007, it's been possible to hide the ribbon by double-clicking on the tab. You can show it again for one action by single-clicking a tab, or "pin" it again by double-clicking one. Once you do that, it takes no more space than the menu bar used to (and less than menu bar + even a single toolbar).
You're making my point.
What if I told you my poo didn't stink? What if I took a big dump right in the middle of your kitchen table, and told you it didn't have a single odor?
You might argue that point, and insist my poo does in fact stink. And then I'd retort, well, if I take my poo outside, you won't smell it in your kitchen any more. Therefor, my poo does not stink.
I hope the logical flaw in that argument is obvious. If my poo didn't stink, I wouldn't need to remove it to remove the smell.
So if the ribbon doesn't take up a lot of space, or any more space than the previous menus and icons, why would I need to minimize it?
In fact, one of the first things I figured out with Office 2010 was how to minimize the ribbon to reclaim that space. I'm not saying this space on my screen is gone and never coming back (at least for the ribbon; there are other display elements which are not hid so easily). I'm saying, the utility of the old menu system is gone.
With the old menu/icon bars, I could resize. I could choose which icons display. Someone in another post said the ribbon is same size as 3 rows of icons in the old system. Which again, is making my point.
3 rows of icons in the old system was too much for me. For most Office apps I had 1 row of icons, maybe 2. Call me crazy, but I like to see the document I'm working on, not the application.
I'm new to Office 2010, still learning, but I haven't found a way to customize the ribbon to that extant. It's either all or nothing. So I go with nothing.
Ribbons are more efficient than navigating complex drop down file menus.
And that is why they are bad. Because most users do not spend most of their time navigating file menus or ribbon tabs. (At least, that's not where they want to spend their time.)
We want to spend our time in our document or spreadsheet or email. And gadgets that cover up or take space away from our documents make us less efficient.
So perhaps that 2% of the time I spend hunting down some rarely used option in Word can be done better with the ribbon. But the 98% of the time I spend in my document is worse.
How do I work faster when I can't see what I'm working on? Even if I all the items I use are on the same tab of the ribbon, the ribbon is just too damn big.
The only thing I can think of useful to do with the ribbon is hide it.
The ribbon is an improvement in user interface design, even if you don't personally like it.
B.S. Even after I learn where the options are on the ribbon. Even after I learn the new short cut keys. Even after I move my most used functions to the quick access toolbar.
Even after I do all those things, the ribbon still keeps me from doing the thing I'm trying to do. It leaves less room for viewing my email, or my document, or my spreadsheet.
If I were to bitch that "ctrl-f" in Word is now "ctrl-h", I suppose that could just be complaining about change in general. There's no more effort, no more keystrokes between the two. Perhaps "ctrl-f" is a little more logical because 'Find' beings with 'f', but really, what's the difference?
But to take away screen space and say I just don't like change? 100% B.S.
It's like taking a pick-up truck and replacing it with a hatchback. For the folks that need and use the pick-up truck, having issues with the hatchback is not "complaining about change in general."
I actually need and use my email. As in, I need to see the message body of my email. Having "panes" popping out from every side of the screen with a thick ribbon across the top, leaving room for a few visible lines of message is not an improvement in user interface design.
Simons countered, saying that Microsoft's data -- obtained from millions of Windows people who agree to provide telemetry on how they use the operating system -- showed that 83% of users run Windows 7 on a widescreen display.
Oh, so this guy is on our side. Using a widescreen display, adding a thick ribbon to the top of every window reduces usable space for the user.
Oh, wait. Here's the full quote.
Simons countered, saying that Microsoft's data -- obtained from millions of Windows people who agree to provide telemetry on how they use the operating system -- showed that 83% of users run Windows 7 on a widescreen display. The new Explorer has been designed to make use of the screen's width and minimize the vertical space it consumes.
What? How does adding a ribbon minimize vertical space consumed? Can someone on the West Coast go up to Redmond and kick this guy in the crotch?
My office rolled out Office 2010 last week, and it's driving me bonkers. Outlook 2010 is a caricature, it's what Mad Magazine might design as a joke UI. I have a menu of folders on the left. I have tasks and upcoming meetings on the right. I have a list of messages on top. And on the bottom I have...I don't know what that thing is. "People Pane?" WTF is a people pane?
What I don't have, is much room left for viewing my EMAIL. You know, the purpose for having Outlook in the first place?
the ribbon approach offered benefits in line with our goals
My goals are to view my email, edit my docs, update spreadsheets, etc. My goals are obviously not in line with MS's goals.
(I did manage to minimize the ribbon and get rid of the task list on the right, so I do have a glimpse to the body of my emails, but I can't hide that damn people pane. Any tips would be appreciated. (Unfortunately uninstalling Outlook is not an option.))
A CEO should do an MTV style 'a day in the life of' where we see them day to day doing their office work. Then for the next 10 episodes, they should do a job in each division of their company preferably in a labour position.
There's already a show like that. It's called Undercover Boss. And it's boring and predictable as frack.
A while back someone posted a link to a picture of his car. I think the context was his driveway was captured by Google street view. Anyway, the vanity plate on the car matched the user's/. nick name. Someone replied with surprise that this should be the case. I had always sorta assumed this is what every/. user (with a car) did.
Well, given the current swell of nostalgia prompted by recent events, any one else out there with vanity plates, tattoos, or other real world paraphernalia related to nicks or things slashdotian? Care to post pics?
Was in a meeting in an interior conference room, 3rd floor. I asked if anyone else felt the room shaking, but I was the only one. Then after meeting we see the news.
I'm surprised--I've never felt one of these little East Coast quakes before. Although this one is on the large size for the area. Usually it's a 4.something that you can't tell from a large truck rumbling by.
I was in Southern CA not too far from the epicenter of a 6.3. That was fun. Not large enough to be a catastrophe, but enough to clear your schedule for the afternoon.
Sure, Silicon Valley and Stanford. They get their props.
But what about 128 ("America's Technology Highway") in Massachusetts, centering around MIT and Harvard?
Digital, Data General, Wang, Prime -- all from that area. Raytheon. Analog Devices. Symbolics. BBN. The list goes on and on.
Multix, Tenex -- foundations from which modern interactive operating systems were derived -- from MIT. Harvard has a *computer architecture* named after it.
Ok. Never mind what I said about Silicon Valley. They were late to the party.
Everyone here is bitching about privacy breach, algorithm complexity etc. Actually it has nothing to do with this experiment. From TFA "Anyone with a Facebook account can participate to verify if everyone is on average approximately six steps away from any other person on Earth. You’ll be asked to select one of your Facebook friends whom you believe is most likely to know the “target person” that has been assigned to you. A message will then be sent from friend to friend until you get it to the “target person.” The goal is to do this in as few steps as possible. "
Basically they are just repeating the old mail experiment, but with a new way of passing messages - unless you (or one of your friends) participates nothing happens to your privacy - no computer algorithm is involved - no problem with celebrity profiles linking thousands of people that now nothing about each other
You're right about the privacy angle, but not about the algorithm.
It's still an algorithm, just with people making choices instead of the computer.
No separation = You are Kevin Bacon One degree = in a movie with Kevin Bacon
A guy from my high school drama club was one of the muggers in Crocodile Dundee ("that's not a knife"). If plays are included in addition to movies, that gets me a Bacon number of 6 or 7.
If you don't restrict connections to performances, Larry David's daughter was my R.A. in college. From there, Larry David was in Seinfeld with the guy who played Neuman, who was in Jurassic Park with Jeff Goldblum, and eventually someone was in something with Kevin Bacon.
As Linus Torvalds recently said, if you're checking for a specific version, you're doing it wrong. Just assume that you're on the most recent one and do the most modern thing unless you're specifically told otherwise. Basically, an addon should work on version X and anything higher, not specifically versions X.A, X.B, and X.C.
But what if I want to what I decide to do, rather than what I'm told?
If Linus assumes (and expects me to assume) the most recent version is the most modern, then he's been assimilated. I want the version that's stable and works, not the one with the latest DRM or IP restrictions.
I'm 40. Started on Java last year. Took my first foray in to C++ a few years ago. I'm also learning a lot about plumbing and carpentry hacking around my house. You're never too old to learn.
At the same time....
WTF?
How many developers, network & server folks, etc. are the stage in their careers where they are training their "off shore" replacements and putting themselves out of a job? Programming as a professional move? You might as well open a buggy whip business.
And that has nothing to do with age. I wouldn't recommend a 25-yr old build a career on developing software and more than I would recommend it to a 40-yr old contemporary.
You're complaining that the only people who contact you on Match.com are people looking for a date.
It's professional networking. For most people, it's keeping in touch with colleagues for when you need a job or letter of reference. It's a way to present an image of yourself online. It's for folks who don't mind being contacted by recruitment agencies.
What I don't get is people posting pictures. If you're in an industry where looks are part of the job (e.g. modelling) or where it is traditional for that 'personal touch' (e.g. real estate), sure. But for everyone else, isn't it just an invitation for discrimination?
It you're too ugly, you won't get an interview. But if you're too good looking, you won't get taken seriously. If you're a recruiter or employer, you flip past 5 profiles with pictures that appear to be from one ethnic group, and then stop and contact the 6th profile, which appears to be from a different ethnic group, are you leaving yourself exposed for a lawsuit?
Does LinkedIn track what profiles you view vs. which ones you contact? Has it occurred to any lawyers yet to subpena that information?
If I was a paranoid employer (or even a slightly skittish one), and using LinkedIn for hiring decisions, I would automatically disregard anyone with a picture in their profile.
I wouldn't know. I stopped R'ing TFA at "In the earliest days of the Internet, otherwise known as Web 1.0"
If the author thinks the Internet started (and ends) with the Web, then I very much doubt he has much insightful to add on the issues of digital systems combat.
I gave TFA a quick read, and you seem to be projecting your own issues on to the author. There's no talk of being "multicultural," no hand wringing over diversity.
It's a legitimate question that needs to be addressed in any research based on Google Books. I've heard the figure quoted in the article before, that Google Books represents 4% of all books ever published. That 4% is a large enough sample to "allow the kind of statistically significant analysis common to many sciences" doesn't mean the particular 4% represented on Good Books is such a sample.
I think your example is telling. Yes, Google Books includes Fanny Hill, so it's not all academic texts and scholarly volumes. But old pr0n is not the same as new pr0n, particularly is representing popular culture. You've got Fanny Hill, but not Penthouse Forum.
And given what we know about Google, are Google Books ngrams influenced by my Gmail account or previous searches on Google?
How can forcefully seizing a domain name, which is not criminal in any way, not be a violation of freedom of speech.
Easy. The motivation for seizing the domain was not speech.
If I take my manifesto and print it on the side of my car, and then go out and run red lights and ignore all sorts of traffic regulations, plow through a couple farmers markets, when I get pulled over and my car taken away, I can't plead freedom of speech.
Perhaps if I otherwise obey the rules of the road and it's obvious I'm getting pulled over strictly for the words written on my car, then I can make that case.
I don't know all the gritty details of this case of domain seizure. I'm not going to posit whether the seizure was right or wrong. But I think it's clear what prompted the seizure is not "speech."
And no. Just because something can be spoken or put on a t-shirt does not make it speech. I am free to stand on a street corner and speak a series of 1s and 0s that when encoded in a computer can be interpreted as video. That does not mean linking to a copyrighted video for which I do not have the copy right is protected by free speech.
(Now if I linked to an audio file of me speaking those 1s and 0s, and just happened to include information on how to encode that audio of me speaking in to a playable video file, then you have an interesting case.)
There may be many reasons for this seizure to be wrong or illegal or unprecedented. But Free Speech doesn't seem to be one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, according to TFA, 1% of users use the "New Folder" command in Windows Explorer while a gobsmackingly large 6% of users use the "New Item" command. Seriously? Who creates a new Word doc this way??? Or Excel? Or anything else, for that matter? Stubbing out a blank document is non-sensical to me...and I'm apparently alone in that.
Seriously? I'm shocked, but in the opposite direction. Only 6% of users use "New Item"?
I use it all the time. Mostly to create new text files, which I rename to .xml or .sql or whatever bit of code I'm in. I also use it for new Office docs.
So what do you do? Fire up your editor or IDE, create a new document, then navigate to where you want it saved?
Guess it depends on where you are. If I have Word open. I'll use that app to create a new doc. But if I'm in the folder where I want the new doc? Why open up Word just to navigate back to the folder where I started? It's quicker to right-click, new Word doc, double click, and I'm there.
Rarely used features are more important to make visible, not less visible.. because people don't know they're there otherwise.
You realize that's insane, don't you?
Go in to your bathroom. Looks at the things on the counter around the sink. What do you see?
Hand soap? Toothbrush? Hair brush? Do you see the things you use every day?
Now kneel down and look in to the cabinet under the sink. What's in there? What's waaaay in the back? The stuff you haven't see in years.
Why isn't that stuff on the counter? That's the rarely used stuff, the stuff you forget about. Why don't you keep that where it's easy to find?
There are some exceptions. For example, a fire extinguisher. That's something which in most cases is rarely used, but you want it someplace easy to find in a hurry.
But for most things, the things we use the most should be quickest to find.
A few posts have mentioned all the data MS crunched to come up with the ribbon.
To that I say, so frackin' what? I don't care if 7 billion people are changing their line spacing options every day. That's not an option I use. In the old icon system, I could move the line spacing option off to the side, or remove it entirely, while the folks who use that option could keep it handy.
With the ribbon, it's all or nothing. If I don't like having the line spacing button front and center on my screen? I can hide the ribbon. I can't add or remove commands. I can't rearrange or regroup commands.
So it takes up more room and offers less functionality than the old icon toolbars.
Find is, and always has been, Control+F.
Control+H is, and always has been, the shortcut for Replace.
Your shortcut keys haven't changed, save for a few exceptions which nearly no one used. I promise that you didn't either.
Then they added all of the Alt+Letter shortcut keys so that EVERY command on the ribbon now has a shortcut.
As for height, unless you've eliminated all but one row of toolbar icons, the Ribbon is no taller than what we had before with menus and toolbars.
I did not know that. I had always done Control+F to bring up the Find window and click over to the Replace tab. Now I have Control+H. I'm not afraid to learn new things.
But to say Control+F hasn't changed is false. Where it used to open that little window with the Find/Replace/Go To tabs, Control+F now opens up a pane on the left running the height of the document window.
What in FSM's name is MS doing with all these panes? Is there something wrong with me being able to see the document I'm working on?
Why the <REDACTED> do people keep spamming this "takes up screen real-estate" BS? Ever since the beta versions of Office 2007, it's been possible to hide the ribbon by double-clicking on the tab. You can show it again for one action by single-clicking a tab, or "pin" it again by double-clicking one. Once you do that, it takes no more space than the menu bar used to (and less than menu bar + even a single toolbar).
You're making my point.
What if I told you my poo didn't stink? What if I took a big dump right in the middle of your kitchen table, and told you it didn't have a single odor?
You might argue that point, and insist my poo does in fact stink. And then I'd retort, well, if I take my poo outside, you won't smell it in your kitchen any more. Therefor, my poo does not stink.
I hope the logical flaw in that argument is obvious. If my poo didn't stink, I wouldn't need to remove it to remove the smell.
So if the ribbon doesn't take up a lot of space, or any more space than the previous menus and icons, why would I need to minimize it?
In fact, one of the first things I figured out with Office 2010 was how to minimize the ribbon to reclaim that space. I'm not saying this space on my screen is gone and never coming back (at least for the ribbon; there are other display elements which are not hid so easily). I'm saying, the utility of the old menu system is gone.
With the old menu/icon bars, I could resize. I could choose which icons display. Someone in another post said the ribbon is same size as 3 rows of icons in the old system. Which again, is making my point.
3 rows of icons in the old system was too much for me. For most Office apps I had 1 row of icons, maybe 2. Call me crazy, but I like to see the document I'm working on, not the application.
I'm new to Office 2010, still learning, but I haven't found a way to customize the ribbon to that extant. It's either all or nothing. So I go with nothing.
Ribbons are more efficient than navigating complex drop down file menus.
And that is why they are bad. Because most users do not spend most of their time navigating file menus or ribbon tabs. (At least, that's not where they want to spend their time.)
We want to spend our time in our document or spreadsheet or email. And gadgets that cover up or take space away from our documents make us less efficient.
So perhaps that 2% of the time I spend hunting down some rarely used option in Word can be done better with the ribbon. But the 98% of the time I spend in my document is worse.
How do I work faster when I can't see what I'm working on? Even if I all the items I use are on the same tab of the ribbon, the ribbon is just too damn big.
The only thing I can think of useful to do with the ribbon is hide it.
The ribbon is an improvement in user interface design, even if you don't personally like it.
B.S. Even after I learn where the options are on the ribbon. Even after I learn the new short cut keys. Even after I move my most used functions to the quick access toolbar.
Even after I do all those things, the ribbon still keeps me from doing the thing I'm trying to do. It leaves less room for viewing my email, or my document, or my spreadsheet.
If I were to bitch that "ctrl-f" in Word is now "ctrl-h", I suppose that could just be complaining about change in general. There's no more effort, no more keystrokes between the two. Perhaps "ctrl-f" is a little more logical because 'Find' beings with 'f', but really, what's the difference?
But to take away screen space and say I just don't like change? 100% B.S.
It's like taking a pick-up truck and replacing it with a hatchback. For the folks that need and use the pick-up truck, having issues with the hatchback is not "complaining about change in general."
I actually need and use my email. As in, I need to see the message body of my email. Having "panes" popping out from every side of the screen with a thick ribbon across the top, leaving room for a few visible lines of message is not an improvement in user interface design.
Simons countered, saying that Microsoft's data -- obtained from millions of Windows people who agree to provide telemetry on how they use the operating system -- showed that 83% of users run Windows 7 on a widescreen display.
Oh, so this guy is on our side. Using a widescreen display, adding a thick ribbon to the top of every window reduces usable space for the user.
Oh, wait. Here's the full quote.
Simons countered, saying that Microsoft's data -- obtained from millions of Windows people who agree to provide telemetry on how they use the operating system -- showed that 83% of users run Windows 7 on a widescreen display. The new Explorer has been designed to make use of the screen's width and minimize the vertical space it consumes.
What? How does adding a ribbon minimize vertical space consumed? Can someone on the West Coast go up to Redmond and kick this guy in the crotch?
My office rolled out Office 2010 last week, and it's driving me bonkers. Outlook 2010 is a caricature, it's what Mad Magazine might design as a joke UI. I have a menu of folders on the left. I have tasks and upcoming meetings on the right. I have a list of messages on top. And on the bottom I have...I don't know what that thing is. "People Pane?" WTF is a people pane?
What I don't have, is much room left for viewing my EMAIL. You know, the purpose for having Outlook in the first place?
the ribbon approach offered benefits in line with our goals
My goals are to view my email, edit my docs, update spreadsheets, etc. My goals are obviously not in line with MS's goals.
(I did manage to minimize the ribbon and get rid of the task list on the right, so I do have a glimpse to the body of my emails, but I can't hide that damn people pane. Any tips would be appreciated. (Unfortunately uninstalling Outlook is not an option.))
A CEO should do an MTV style 'a day in the life of' where we see them day to day doing their office work. Then for the next 10 episodes, they should do a job in each division of their company preferably in a labour position.
There's already a show like that. It's called Undercover Boss. And it's boring and predictable as frack.
A while back someone posted a link to a picture of his car. I think the context was his driveway was captured by Google street view. Anyway, the vanity plate on the car matched the user's /. nick name. Someone replied with surprise that this should be the case. I had always sorta assumed this is what every /. user (with a car) did.
Well, given the current swell of nostalgia prompted by recent events, any one else out there with vanity plates, tattoos, or other real world paraphernalia related to nicks or things slashdotian? Care to post pics?
Here's my contribution.
Yes, the birth certificates for your twins counts, if their names are Cowboy and Neal.
443 before me, was that a measure of a few days back then?
We should start a project to get active folks to post to a thread in order of UID.
I usually estimate by folks with numbers close to mine.
So if you don't know, then I don't know. I'm guessing around late-2000/early-2001.
I started lurking at one job in 2000. But I don't think I created the account until another job I started September 2000.
Was laid off in March 2001 (yea dot bomb!) so that narrows it down.
Tell me about it, brother.
At 5 digits (just), I'm stuck with your wife, too!
Natick, MA here.
Was in a meeting in an interior conference room, 3rd floor. I asked if anyone else felt the room shaking, but I was the only one. Then after meeting we see the news.
I'm surprised--I've never felt one of these little East Coast quakes before. Although this one is on the large size for the area. Usually it's a 4.something that you can't tell from a large truck rumbling by.
I was in Southern CA not too far from the epicenter of a 6.3. That was fun. Not large enough to be a catastrophe, but enough to clear your schedule for the afternoon.
I think they missed something important...
Sure, Silicon Valley and Stanford. They get their props.
But what about 128 ("America's Technology Highway") in Massachusetts, centering around MIT and Harvard?
Digital, Data General, Wang, Prime -- all from that area. Raytheon. Analog Devices. Symbolics. BBN. The list goes on and on.
Multix, Tenex -- foundations from which modern interactive operating systems were derived -- from MIT. Harvard has a *computer architecture* named after it.
Ok. Never mind what I said about Silicon Valley. They were late to the party.
Heeheehee...he said Wang.
...of 2008.
iPhones are already out in China. What do they think those Apple stores are selling?
Everyone here is bitching about privacy breach, algorithm complexity etc. Actually it has nothing to do with this experiment. From TFA
"Anyone with a Facebook account can participate to verify if everyone is on average approximately six steps away from any other person on Earth. You’ll be asked to select one of your Facebook friends whom you believe is most likely to know the “target person” that has been assigned to you. A message will then be sent from friend to friend until you get it to the “target person.” The goal is to do this in as few steps as possible. "
Basically they are just repeating the old mail experiment, but with a new way of passing messages
- unless you (or one of your friends) participates nothing happens to your privacy
- no computer algorithm is involved
- no problem with celebrity profiles linking thousands of people that now nothing about each other
You're right about the privacy angle, but not about the algorithm.
It's still an algorithm, just with people making choices instead of the computer.
No separation = You are Kevin Bacon
One degree = in a movie with Kevin Bacon
A guy from my high school drama club was one of the muggers in Crocodile Dundee ("that's not a knife"). If plays are included in addition to movies, that gets me a Bacon number of 6 or 7.
If you don't restrict connections to performances, Larry David's daughter was my R.A. in college. From there, Larry David was in Seinfeld with the guy who played Neuman, who was in Jurassic Park with Jeff Goldblum, and eventually someone was in something with Kevin Bacon.
As Linus Torvalds recently said, if you're checking for a specific version, you're doing it wrong. Just assume that you're on the most recent one and do the most modern thing unless you're specifically told otherwise. Basically, an addon should work on version X and anything higher, not specifically versions X.A, X.B, and X.C.
But what if I want to what I decide to do, rather than what I'm told?
If Linus assumes (and expects me to assume) the most recent version is the most modern, then he's been assimilated. I want the version that's stable and works, not the one with the latest DRM or IP restrictions.
WTF?
I'm 40. Started on Java last year. Took my first foray in to C++ a few years ago. I'm also learning a lot about plumbing and carpentry hacking around my house. You're never too old to learn.
At the same time....
WTF?
How many developers, network & server folks, etc. are the stage in their careers where they are training their "off shore" replacements and putting themselves out of a job? Programming as a professional move? You might as well open a buggy whip business.
And that has nothing to do with age. I wouldn't recommend a 25-yr old build a career on developing software and more than I would recommend it to a 40-yr old contemporary.
What's not to get?
You're complaining that the only people who contact you on Match.com are people looking for a date.
It's professional networking. For most people, it's keeping in touch with colleagues for when you need a job or letter of reference. It's a way to present an image of yourself online. It's for folks who don't mind being contacted by recruitment agencies.
What I don't get is people posting pictures. If you're in an industry where looks are part of the job (e.g. modelling) or where it is traditional for that 'personal touch' (e.g. real estate), sure. But for everyone else, isn't it just an invitation for discrimination?
It you're too ugly, you won't get an interview. But if you're too good looking, you won't get taken seriously. If you're a recruiter or employer, you flip past 5 profiles with pictures that appear to be from one ethnic group, and then stop and contact the 6th profile, which appears to be from a different ethnic group, are you leaving yourself exposed for a lawsuit?
Does LinkedIn track what profiles you view vs. which ones you contact? Has it occurred to any lawyers yet to subpena that information?
If I was a paranoid employer (or even a slightly skittish one), and using LinkedIn for hiring decisions, I would automatically disregard anyone with a picture in their profile.
What about a company sending a lot of emails to a person?
I wouldn't know. I stopped R'ing TFA at "In the earliest days of the Internet, otherwise known as Web 1.0"
If the author thinks the Internet started (and ends) with the Web, then I very much doubt he has much insightful to add on the issues of digital systems combat.
I gave TFA a quick read, and you seem to be projecting your own issues on to the author. There's no talk of being "multicultural," no hand wringing over diversity.
It's a legitimate question that needs to be addressed in any research based on Google Books. I've heard the figure quoted in the article before, that Google Books represents 4% of all books ever published. That 4% is a large enough sample to "allow the kind of statistically significant analysis common to many sciences" doesn't mean the particular 4% represented on Good Books is such a sample.
I think your example is telling. Yes, Google Books includes Fanny Hill, so it's not all academic texts and scholarly volumes. But old pr0n is not the same as new pr0n, particularly is representing popular culture. You've got Fanny Hill, but not Penthouse Forum.
And given what we know about Google, are Google Books ngrams influenced by my Gmail account or previous searches on Google?
How can forcefully seizing a domain name, which is not criminal in any way, not be a violation of freedom of speech.
Easy. The motivation for seizing the domain was not speech.
If I take my manifesto and print it on the side of my car, and then go out and run red lights and ignore all sorts of traffic regulations, plow through a couple farmers markets, when I get pulled over and my car taken away, I can't plead freedom of speech.
Perhaps if I otherwise obey the rules of the road and it's obvious I'm getting pulled over strictly for the words written on my car, then I can make that case.
I don't know all the gritty details of this case of domain seizure. I'm not going to posit whether the seizure was right or wrong. But I think it's clear what prompted the seizure is not "speech."
And no. Just because something can be spoken or put on a t-shirt does not make it speech. I am free to stand on a street corner and speak a series of 1s and 0s that when encoded in a computer can be interpreted as video. That does not mean linking to a copyrighted video for which I do not have the copy right is protected by free speech.
(Now if I linked to an audio file of me speaking those 1s and 0s, and just happened to include information on how to encode that audio of me speaking in to a playable video file, then you have an interesting case.)
There may be many reasons for this seizure to be wrong or illegal or unprecedented. But Free Speech doesn't seem to be one of them.