After my initial tests, I must say that ReFS is incredible advangement. ReFS supports named streams, object IDs, short names, compression, file level encryption (EFS), user data transactions, sparse, hard-links, extended attributes and quotas. It is basically all the best filesystems compiled into one.
Not only is this good for Windows system, but overall network architecture.
SilverLight. They technology behind it stunning. You can also use C# to developed. For video sites there's also a HUGE difference compared to flash - with SilverLight the client and server will adjust to the available bandwidth the user has.. in flash this would just show up the loading icon and stop playing. SilverLight is technically much better than Flash.
What? Do you honestly think no other country could have created those? For example we had multiple local Facebook equivalents since like the 90's. Widely used in my country too, with almost all teens and young adults being on those services. Similarly there was search engines, in fact in larger countries they even to this day dominate Google (In Russia Yandex, in China Baidu and in South Korea Naver)
But that xkcd is exactly what Google is doing - creating yet another standard on the pile of old ones instead of doing it together with other browser makers.
But why would anyone start to use this? Google has a huge problem with quickly abandoning projects. They just throw something at wall and see if it sticks. There's no point to start learning and using something that will be dead soon. On top of that something being licensed under BSD license is a moot point if it's Google that dictates the whole "standard" without possibility of other browser makers to voice their opinions. This is why we have W3C and other standard consortium's - so that companies can work out the standard together.
The same problem that there would be with lots of people if Microsoft started suddenly introducing their own "standards" again. There's still some issues because of all that bs 10 years ago, but now it has almost gone away. There really isn't any need to broke the web again. And how to create something better? Work out a standard of it. Don't just create it, but ask others if they have some opinions and make it with others so that they can contribute their opinions too.
As a web developer and after all the nuisance old IE's gave me and other web developers back in the day, this is really what's stupid with Chromium and Google's approach. They're mimicking the old Microsoft here - make your own "standards" and break the web by making features and sites that only work Google's browser. I seriously thought we would had been past that and the old IE's were the last browsers that didn't adhere to standards. IE9 is now fully standards compliant, and what does Google do? Oh yes, break the web AGAIN.
This isn't the only time they're introduced non-standards compliant features, either. Another example is NaCl, or Native Client, which tries to mimic Microsoft's ActiveX, and again, only works in Chrome. But with all the security headaches. It seems like Google is going out of it's way to copy all the stupid mistakes Microsoft made. I guess Google is at the same point now than Microsoft was back then - antitrust issues, breaking web standards and constant flow of news of how they're done wrong again. It's like Microsoft all again.
This is a stupid question. Of course you are going to buy product that is ready to do what you want. Writing custom code is always hundreds of times more costly. These commercial products can sell them cheaper because they sell thousands, even millions of them. But if you need someone to write that code for you (which you will be doing regardless of putting it open source), it will cost.
So take the product that is required to get the job done, right now. Don't waste the money on getting some expensive coders on other product. You would also have headaches with testing and bugs. All that is done for you with MSSQL. Take it.
No. Facebook will compile the mentions of the U.S. candidates. ThenFacebook's data team will use automated software tools to do the statistics. These statistics are given to Politico, not the actual messages.
With this new Facebook/Politico thing, Facebook is giving the data to Politico to analyze. There's the problem. They are taking what I put on Facebook and giving it to someone else without my permission. That would be like Google taking your emails and giving them to a 3rd party to look at.
That is entirely false. Facebook is not giving Politico any private messages. They will run the statistics tools themselves.
facebook is sharing anonymized personal messages and typed posts. the difference here is night and day.
No they aren't. Summary is just badly worded. Facebook will not share any messages with anyone, they will run the statistics tools themselves. Read the announcement by Facebook, where they clearly state that. Politico will not get the messages.
Google is taking data that users are providing them, and doing statistical analysis on that data. There's no issue with this, because it's not leaving Google.
Facebook is taking data that users are providing them, and sending it off to a third party to do statistical analysis on it. This is a terrible invasion of privacy, because Facebook users never intended for their private data to be shipped off to other companies.
If you can't see the difference here than you're either dumb or an anti-Google shill.
No, that's only what the summary is claiming. How unsurprising that it is wrong. Read the announcement by Facebook
Facebook will compile mentions of the candidates in U.S. users' posts and comments as well as assess positive and negative sentiments expressed about them. Facebookâ(TM)s data team will use automated software tools frequently used by researchers to infer sentiment from text.
This is similar to the way Google offers reports on search trends based on its users’ aggregate search activities.
In fact, all of this is public information too. You can look at search amounts for specific searches here.
It's just numerical data. Facebook seems to do this analysis by searching all the posts that mention candidate's name and if the associated words are positive or negative.
The comparison to anonymized data in the summary is stupid. Facebook publishing any of those messages, they're just doing analysis on them. There would be good point in this article if they actually published those messages because then anonymizing doesn't work, but it's a moot point because they aren't making anything public. Only the aggregated search amounts.
These granted software patents are ridiculous. Patenting detection of trending topics and search queries? Jeez. Companies like Google and Apple are collectively abusing the system and patenting every single thing they can think of, most of which are outright obvious.
The worst thing is that like copyrights, U.S. is trying to spread patents (including software patents) all over the world. They've been trying to get European Union to join them for a long time now. At least we've still resisted, even though it is getting there.
And you know what will happen? Countries like India and China will only strengthen their positions. When companies in the US and Europe have huge overhead costs going to lawyers, have to avoid good techniques in their products because someone has patented it already, and are spending time in courts, Chinese and Indians will just laugh and grow to dominate the world markets. U.S. knows this. They know it very well because after all, they blatantly ignored all European copyrights and that's how they got their power. And don't think even for a second that the Chinese don't know history or are afraid to use the same advantage. In a way US is like the old media companies and RIAA/MPAA.. so adjusted to their ways and existing powers that they just can't move forward with the rest of the world anymore.
It's time to get rid of all software patents and this constant abuse by corporations.
Ask the content products. The reality, however, is that they need to work out the deals. Pointing the fingers at them while your own device is not working doesn't help customers at all, especially since every other device works.
Well that just the same old elitist "nothing but junk on TV" line. In my opinion there are plenty of good shows on TV, in fact more than I even have time to watch. Saying that there is nothing good to watch is pretty much the same when old people are crumby about how everything was better before and teens can't behave now. Now I get off your lawn!
Anyone who has ever used or read about the original Google TV would know that the problem wasn't about technical details, lack of customized folders and shortcuts or user interface and apps. You know what it was? The lack of content! Since Google didn't work out deals with content providers, all of them just started blocking Google TV. I don't care about whose fault it is, but since Apple TV and all the competitors have worked it out (hell, even Microsoft with Xbox360!), there is no point in buying Google TV! The worst part is those who bought the original Google TV could not know about it beforehand, and soon found that there is absolutely nothing to watch apart from some stupid YouTube clips.
Another funny thing is that they're adding tracking and suggestions to Google TV. Can't wait for those "did you mean to watch this instead?" questions!
So what Google should do is stop playing with new user interfaces and features and actually work out the core feature, having content to watch!
Slashdot Mirror
After my initial tests, I must say that ReFS is incredible advangement. ReFS supports named streams, object IDs, short names, compression, file level encryption (EFS), user data transactions, sparse, hard-links, extended attributes and quotas. It is basically all the best filesystems compiled into one.
Not only is this good for Windows system, but overall network architecture.
What about if you stopped stalking me? Regarding the story, I have no opinion about this.
SilverLight. They technology behind it stunning. You can also use C# to developed. For video sites there's also a HUGE difference compared to flash - with SilverLight the client and server will adjust to the available bandwidth the user has.. in flash this would just show up the loading icon and stop playing. SilverLight is technically much better than Flash.
What? Do you honestly think no other country could have created those? For example we had multiple local Facebook equivalents since like the 90's. Widely used in my country too, with almost all teens and young adults being on those services. Similarly there was search engines, in fact in larger countries they even to this day dominate Google (In Russia Yandex, in China Baidu and in South Korea Naver)
But that xkcd is exactly what Google is doing - creating yet another standard on the pile of old ones instead of doing it together with other browser makers.
But why would anyone start to use this? Google has a huge problem with quickly abandoning projects. They just throw something at wall and see if it sticks. There's no point to start learning and using something that will be dead soon. On top of that something being licensed under BSD license is a moot point if it's Google that dictates the whole "standard" without possibility of other browser makers to voice their opinions. This is why we have W3C and other standard consortium's - so that companies can work out the standard together.
The same problem that there would be with lots of people if Microsoft started suddenly introducing their own "standards" again. There's still some issues because of all that bs 10 years ago, but now it has almost gone away. There really isn't any need to broke the web again. And how to create something better? Work out a standard of it. Don't just create it, but ask others if they have some opinions and make it with others so that they can contribute their opinions too.
Note that you'll need Chromium to run the demos
As a web developer and after all the nuisance old IE's gave me and other web developers back in the day, this is really what's stupid with Chromium and Google's approach. They're mimicking the old Microsoft here - make your own "standards" and break the web by making features and sites that only work Google's browser. I seriously thought we would had been past that and the old IE's were the last browsers that didn't adhere to standards. IE9 is now fully standards compliant, and what does Google do? Oh yes, break the web AGAIN.
This isn't the only time they're introduced non-standards compliant features, either. Another example is NaCl, or Native Client, which tries to mimic Microsoft's ActiveX, and again, only works in Chrome. But with all the security headaches. It seems like Google is going out of it's way to copy all the stupid mistakes Microsoft made. I guess Google is at the same point now than Microsoft was back then - antitrust issues, breaking web standards and constant flow of news of how they're done wrong again. It's like Microsoft all again.
This is a stupid question. Of course you are going to buy product that is ready to do what you want. Writing custom code is always hundreds of times more costly. These commercial products can sell them cheaper because they sell thousands, even millions of them. But if you need someone to write that code for you (which you will be doing regardless of putting it open source), it will cost.
So take the product that is required to get the job done, right now. Don't waste the money on getting some expensive coders on other product. You would also have headaches with testing and bugs. All that is done for you with MSSQL. Take it.
No. Facebook will compile the mentions of the U.S. candidates. Then Facebook's data team will use automated software tools to do the statistics. These statistics are given to Politico, not the actual messages.
With this new Facebook/Politico thing, Facebook is giving the data to Politico to analyze. There's the problem. They are taking what I put on Facebook and giving it to someone else without my permission. That would be like Google taking your emails and giving them to a 3rd party to look at.
That is entirely false. Facebook is not giving Politico any private messages. They will run the statistics tools themselves.
facebook is sharing anonymized personal messages and typed posts. the difference here is night and day.
No they aren't. Summary is just badly worded. Facebook will not share any messages with anyone, they will run the statistics tools themselves. Read the announcement by Facebook, where they clearly state that. Politico will not get the messages.
Yes, the summary is badly worded. Facebook themselves clearly say that it is Facebook who will run the statistics software.
Google is taking data that users are providing them, and doing statistical analysis on that data. There's no issue with this, because it's not leaving Google.
Facebook is taking data that users are providing them, and sending it off to a third party to do statistical analysis on it. This is a terrible invasion of privacy, because Facebook users never intended for their private data to be shipped off to other companies.
If you can't see the difference here than you're either dumb or an anti-Google shill.
No, that's only what the summary is claiming. How unsurprising that it is wrong. Read the announcement by Facebook
Facebook will compile mentions of the candidates in U.S. users' posts and comments as well as assess positive and negative sentiments expressed about them. Facebookâ(TM)s data team will use automated software tools frequently used by researchers to infer sentiment from text.
This is similar to the way Google offers reports on search trends based on its users’ aggregate search activities.
In fact, all of this is public information too. You can look at search amounts for specific searches here.
It's just numerical data. Facebook seems to do this analysis by searching all the posts that mention candidate's name and if the associated words are positive or negative.
The comparison to anonymized data in the summary is stupid. Facebook publishing any of those messages, they're just doing analysis on them. There would be good point in this article if they actually published those messages because then anonymizing doesn't work, but it's a moot point because they aren't making anything public. Only the aggregated search amounts.
These granted software patents are ridiculous. Patenting detection of trending topics and search queries? Jeez. Companies like Google and Apple are collectively abusing the system and patenting every single thing they can think of, most of which are outright obvious.
The worst thing is that like copyrights, U.S. is trying to spread patents (including software patents) all over the world. They've been trying to get European Union to join them for a long time now. At least we've still resisted, even though it is getting there.
And you know what will happen? Countries like India and China will only strengthen their positions. When companies in the US and Europe have huge overhead costs going to lawyers, have to avoid good techniques in their products because someone has patented it already, and are spending time in courts, Chinese and Indians will just laugh and grow to dominate the world markets. U.S. knows this. They know it very well because after all, they blatantly ignored all European copyrights and that's how they got their power. And don't think even for a second that the Chinese don't know history or are afraid to use the same advantage. In a way US is like the old media companies and RIAA/MPAA.. so adjusted to their ways and existing powers that they just can't move forward with the rest of the world anymore.
It's time to get rid of all software patents and this constant abuse by corporations.
Good work!
Ask the content products. The reality, however, is that they need to work out the deals. Pointing the fingers at them while your own device is not working doesn't help customers at all, especially since every other device works.
Well that just the same old elitist "nothing but junk on TV" line. In my opinion there are plenty of good shows on TV, in fact more than I even have time to watch. Saying that there is nothing good to watch is pretty much the same when old people are crumby about how everything was better before and teens can't behave now. Now I get off your lawn!
Anyone who has ever used or read about the original Google TV would know that the problem wasn't about technical details, lack of customized folders and shortcuts or user interface and apps. You know what it was? The lack of content! Since Google didn't work out deals with content providers, all of them just started blocking Google TV. I don't care about whose fault it is, but since Apple TV and all the competitors have worked it out (hell, even Microsoft with Xbox360!), there is no point in buying Google TV! The worst part is those who bought the original Google TV could not know about it beforehand, and soon found that there is absolutely nothing to watch apart from some stupid YouTube clips.
Another funny thing is that they're adding tracking and suggestions to Google TV. Can't wait for those "did you mean to watch this instead?" questions!
So what Google should do is stop playing with new user interfaces and features and actually work out the core feature, having content to watch!