HN user
Andy, London England
That wasn't the point. Is the network really "slower by orders of magnitude" than disk? Why is using the network such a silly idea, considering network speeds are more than keeping up. Was the reference just referring to protocols. I was hoping for some accuracy: something to back up the statement.
Isn't he replacing disk I/O with network I/O, and unless you are talking about SSD isn't the network faster?
http://serverfault.com/questions/238417/are-networks-now-fas...
Doesn't google's search engine demonstrate this?
Not sure that the message really has sunk in. The way to a good reputation is to be good and exceed people's expectations. Not complain that the world isn't a good judge.
I'd go further than this, if this is confusing architecture with development. This is not to say that a senior developer or systems engineer could take on an architecture role: but this wouldn't be the check-list in my view.
An architect is more likely, like his building counterpart, to see the system from the top down. That is given a clean sheet of paper: How can we achieve the availablility and fault-tolerance we need? what is the threading model? how does the system connect to the outside world? etc...
Whoever takes the role of doing this makes sure that the direction of the implementation doesn't loose sight of these goals. He may even create non-functional requirements.
In our neighbourhood we've been calling working with particularly difficult legacy code software archaeology: where it's not not clear what some piece of software was supposed to do. http://media.pragprog.com/articles/mar_02_archeology.pdf
If copyright were just to protect the investment of a company in development of an artist or product I'd broadly agree with this argument.
Where copyright seems objectionable to me, is where the initial cost of development was non-existent or large profits have been made for years. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Royalty_a...
For some copyright to last 95 years seems more like profiteering than protection of the creative industries considering creation is often based on the work of others.
I don't condone piracy, but I think piracy would be far less socially acceptable if: - the creator can be seen to benefit from their work - copyright better resembled its original intent of protecting investment in the creation of something new and not staking ownership over the work of others.
I'm sure "where am I" is next
I remember people being pretty sceptical of android when it first came out, and it took time for the issues to be ironed out. If google are going to use the same gameplan, then the prices will eventually go down and the usability up. It seems to me to be a question of Google's commitment.
I find this unsurprising, companies don't resort to court before having a conversation. Even if the conversation is I think you should pay us licensing. The court actions are born out of disagreement.
Is this surprising since chrome uses a sandbox model, It is firefox's apparent memory leaking that's the worry.
An illustration of why some of the software industry wants to be more like the music industry and why the music industry doesn't want to be like the software industry.
Imagine if you were still making money off a program you wrote in 1960. Almost inconceivable in any mass market.
Also worth looking into tcmalloc: http://goog-perftools.sourceforge.net/doc/tcmalloc.html
Which comes with tools: http://goog-perftools.sourceforge.net/doc/heap_checker.html http://goog-perftools.sourceforge.net/doc/heap_profiler.html
My understanding is the use of Open was used before this by Symbolics and possibly other lisp machine manufactuers. I'd argue too that their systems were more open, where the user could read the system software and patch it in while it was running.
The foundations of the open source movement too stem from these communities (the GPL) not from NeXt. It would appear to me, like other Unix manufacturers, NeXt claimed openness when mostly it was marketing-speak for "based on Unix".
Doesn't north korea have a "private internet" and it's rubbish: if you're centrally managing content it's not an internet.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is more about Twitter's other customers rather than Twitter's attitude to Google+. There are many who would pay a lot to get one over Google.
If tax is for anything it ought to be to help the less fortune in society. Once you start discriminating on who is the most deserving of basic medical society you have to start questioning the society you live in.
The state funding some basic form of healthcare for all is civilizing, and has other benefits. Healthcare is not an incentive to do well: it does not work as an incentive at all. Those who want better healthcare pay for it even in countries where there is a basic provision.
It's perfectly possible for state healthcare provision to co-exist with private healthcare providers too.
This appears to be an interview problem, possibly to determine how candidates think. It reminds me of stories like this:
The specification ( http://tukaani.org/xz/xz-file-format.txt ) reads like this format allows the application of a chain of compression "filters". Perhaps the most interesting, and least portable is the filter that modifies code to make compression easier. (Section 5.2.3) Is this mainly for intel architecures?
A competitive marketplace is proving better than stagnant monopoly. Long live the competition.
Seems a superficial argument, C++'s features have not been added into Java to create Scala. Even the Java community is pushing Java7 in a direction with richer features, except the language is beginning to get in the way. Generics are not implemented too well, closures are likely to complicate matters further.
Rather than going it alone it sounds like you ought to be partnering with someone. Studying IT even at a higher level courses aim at giving you a grounding in the subject, I'd imagine you want to target the pieces that you are interested in. Better to form a team with the skills that you need and learn from one-another.
I'm no expert on this, but isn't the role of a design agency to advise on these sorts of problems?
Not only is these problems difficult to reproduce this post is highly irritating. I find the attitude ignorant.
Decline is different from dead. The language is not dead, less people might use it. You cannot judge the popularity of a language just from, say, the position of a web programmer. Computing is so diverse now, perl will always have an active community (it seems to me) as it is very good for certain types of problems. Funnily enough, those are the problems that is was originally designed for: not CGI.
Perl is a great tool, in the tradition of the Unix command line. It is a testament to its success that is not considered to be a more powerful awk.
Good tools may be the new battle ground for developers: Sproutcore and other tools could be demoed. So designers can create applications in a more flash-like way?
This isn't support in the sense that Microsoft will ship this codec, just if you install it you'll be able to use it. For me "it's up to the user", is not really supporting it any more than Microsoft supports any other third-party software. I imagine that Microsoft's implementation allows any codec installed to be used in html5.
This could be seen as a success of chrome, given Google's stated reasons for releasing the code:
Primarily it's because one of the fundamental goals of the Chromium project is to help drive the web forward. Open source projects like Firefox and WebKit have led the way in defining the next generation of web technologies and standards, and we felt the best way we could help was to follow suit, and be as open as we could.
A bit of competition has prevented the market from stagnating again.
This article refers the the original: http://www.sadanduseless.com/2010/05/steve-jobs-vs-bill-gate...
Are you sure that this will work on an iPad? Just because it's available in the browser doesn't mean it can be used. Take Google docs as an example.
It would be laughable a few years ago that people would view the whole web through a php portal. Now it's just a little ridiculous, but not unimaginable. Can't the world do better than this buggy portal?