However, I think better commenting systems are the real problem here, instead of hacking current ones. The "threaded" conversations in this post are very cool, but disqus threaded comments are much more intuitive.
And instead of making just a blockquote, and referring back, github-type line commenting would be awesome.
The model of post then comments is kind of counter intuitive in terms of real discussion.
Once you get into truly large data amounts, other things start to break (RAID 5, RAID 6, tape backup, disk backup, synchronization, the ability to replace storage systems without massive outages). The good news is that they're almost all solved problems, but you're usually stuck with buying overpriced crap from EMC, Hitachi, NetApp, 3PAR and IBM (storage is a protection racket). All of this combines to explain why a good storage admin pulls down 6 figures a year.
I may be a bit myopic, but I see a world coming where technology startups trade capital costs for operating costs. S3 is pricey if you're dealing with small quantities of data, but once the step increase in your per-GB storage costs goes over 30%, you might want to reconsider. The steps only get bigger.
It would be interesting to contrast the blog with wikipedia. I haven't yet gone through the explanation, but I had to check wiki first to get a grasp of the problem.
Where do we draw the line between making an excuse and being optimistic? You might do the absolute best you can but the timimg just wasn't right.
I believe the difference is in effort and who you tell. If you're truly doing the best you can, then you can internally "excuse" yourself and still have genuine self-esteem while publicly admitting failure.
another screen shot.
An 8 hr battery on 17" device is pretty cool
They always inflate this number and I wouldn't be surprise if it loses its charge quickly like most other macs. plus, integrated battery? no thanks.
No-DRM was more of a 'Finally!' than a 'Wow!'
Don't get me wrong, they're newsworthy, but I feel like there was no climax. nothing too surprising
Motivation speakers are selling their own past experience, speaking style etc.
You can question what that experience or opinion is worth same as you can question if that jacket is worth its price. But that's not a ponzi scheme.
I don't think that every 50ms difference is unimportant, but the difference between a 50ms render time and 100ms render time may be unimportant. Anyone have a feel for what the maximum render time is for a page to feel fast?
Quote: "The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. ... This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store."
I will try to pick up on those comments here in the thread, particularly support issues:
> When first starting up TeamPostgreSQL with the "Start TeamPostgreSQL" Windows start menu option, I am given no indication that I should connect to it with a web browser on localhost:8080. I was able to figure this out by inspecting the process, but I did not notice any information being presented to me about this previously.
Of course. We will log this in the server window when it starts up. Note that the installer should have added a desktop link which opens your browser on the right address.
> There doesn't seem to be any way to view the full text of a long column, like a varchar(255). The first bit of the text is shown, followed by an ellipsis, but I don't know how to view the rest of the data.
Right. For now you have to select the row and click the 'edit' button, that will bring up controls to view the full content of these fields. Of course this control should be available when browsing the rows - will fix that.
They would also know what they like & dis-like in terms of features their product should have vs. juniper which probably address a wider customer wish list; maybe & I am speculating here, Juniper takes a long time to turn around on features or some features are custom to goog and Juniper doesn't want to build them.
So goog gets to design a product that fits their needs for the next few years. If the product turns out well there might even be tremendous competitive advantage since googs competitors can't buy it.
Worst case things don't work out and they go back to buying Juniper.
When I talk to someone I know has a large vocabulary, I am free to use the best word that occurs to me, and if they think I'm up to snuff, they are free to do the same thing. This makes for a more pleasurable conversation. (Assuming we're actually trying to say something to each other. But if the motivation is to show off, or engage in ego jockeying, that's boring.)
I guess it's more accurate to say that baud rate surges transiently when a rare, but exceptionally precise word enters this sort of conversation.
I would definitely be waiting to have my emails delayed a few seconds if Gmail would momentarily display an Undo option. This would mean that the email wouldn't even be sent until after the Undo option expired, so we wouldn't need to worry about the email protocol.
Placing bids on the Swoopo website is tedious and expensive, and also unreliable (all those javascript timers tend to lock up the browser). Instead of biddign on impulse, I've found that leaving my robot in charge reduces the overall number of bids that I need to make in order to remain competitive - I only jump in when certain conditions are met (when other people either run out of bids or walk away).
Has anybody else successfully sold software in this way before?
I heard a speak from some Xbox manager once and he talked a lot about trial versions of games. I think(not sure) MS requires every game that is sold in Live Marketspace to have some kind of trial. He made a point that trials and especially great trials can mean a lot for game's success. Great trial isn't just a crippled version or the first level of the game but a game itself, using almost all the mechanics.
Of course the scale is different, but I think the general point is that trials actually help in the long-tail if your game is any good.
Anyway, if people didn't accidentally send stuff like this, cnn.com and other mainstream media couldn't write an article about it every 6 months.
The killer Bob <verb:[lived sat stood munched ...]>.
I wonder why so few people think about the following line of reasoning:
1. Our current economy is based on money as a medium of exchange to function (separation of labor -> good)
2. Therefore, money is a universal medium of exchange and acquires a value separate from the exchange value: liquidity, the possibility to exchange it for anything else (see Keynes et.al) -> unintended but ok
3. As a consequence, our current money relies on a positive rate of interest to circulate. Whenever the interest rate gets too close to zero, money holders will not give up their privilege of liquidity and not lend out their money (bad!)
4. As a result, the economy collapses - simply because the medium of exchange stops circulating. In the end, the government has to print new money to replace the money not being spent/lent, leading to inflation. Alternatively, the state has to make new debts or fund dying industries only to keep interest rates positive... (very bad!)
This reasoning does not depend on any technology or production-based argument because every human undertaking these days is based on beating the rate of interest. Even if you only invest your own money, you have to factor in the interest you might have gotten at the bank.
There's a really simple fix to it: motivate money holders to part with their money even without interest. You would get an economy that can grow when it needs to but can contract as well without collapsing.
Even though it seems god-given, money itself is actually pretty hackable. If you're interested, one interesting proposal is here: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/suhr/nngengl.html
A lot of philosophy seems really ridiculous to me, and yet there must be a need to chunk concepts and give them labels. When you agree on the basket of concepts tagged with "logical positivism" or "paleo-conservatism" isn't it easier to just use that phrase and not repeatedly invoke all or the topically relevant concepts of that set?
Of course, the problem is when these labels are overburdened and/or so multifaceted that you could be talking about subtly different things and not get anywhere. This is why philosophy should be based not in the fuzzy verbal, but in the concisely mathematical, but that is another topic.
I can't point to any letters to showcase the method, but I'd point to political science as it is a place where verbal philosophy and practicality do coincide.