kvs

To this excellent list, I'd also like to add for each position posted: - The position's challenge of the week - The position's challenge of the month

This is one of the questions I ask every interviewer who interviews me.

I second that. Very useful program; pretty much any Microsoft product is available for download and use within the startup.

1999

Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life (Masterminds Series) (Paperback) Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

It would also be interesting to see who won the DARPA CINDER: http://www.darpa.mil/sto/solicitations/sn10-68/index.html this year.

They can always sell it when the price is higher and lease it back.

Here is my issue with Things Sync:

Ever since they released their iPhone app customers have been asking them for sync. This being a productivity app sync is very important. Things for the longest time has had WiFi sync. It is a pain for two reasons:

1. I have to remember to sync my devices every time I make changes. This is not rest of my productivity apps work. My calendars sync automagically, my email inbox sync automagically, my filesystem syncs automagically, BUT my _productivity_ app does not!

2. Wireless syncing doesn't always work because in some environments they block the underlying protocol. Then I have to setup an AdHoc network etc. etc.

Failure on CC's part, IMO, is the lack of understanding, perhaps, of how important sync is to their customers. A good approach would have been to incrementally introduce support for sync, using Dropbox or MobileMe or what not. Instead what it looks like happening is they are building a whole new infrastructure that we will have to use to sync Things. My problem is that I already pay for two good sync solutions that work well. I don't see the point in paying for another one just for syncing.

Some how this all sounds like they are gearing up to develop a Things specific sync service. Last thing I want is another service I have to pay to sync my data. Already paying for Dropbox and MobileMe.

Why is this better than current approach? Is it because the current password remain unchanged until the user click on the link to reset part?

Recently I wrote "...user data is scattered among many web properties..." In essence it is "data scatter" Decentralization, in my mind, implies some sort of planning on where to put data (say to prevent failure or enhance efficiency...) but I don't think users plan.

Not necessarily all evil. Only text-book implementations require that one allocate individual nodes. Most implementations I have seen in Linux and FreeBSD can pool allocate the nodes. One can also pull off neat tricks to append link chains in these implementations to expand the list without the need to reallocate memory as needed by arrays.

Here is a list of patents and industry vendors sued: http://intellectualventures.com/Libraries/Article_Reprints/F...

People who can authoritatively talk about such attacks can't or don't talk. So, information out there is mostly anecdotal at best or just plain speculation. These cables add to that stack of information but from a much higher level of involvement. It may not be new or news but it's certainly from more credible source than what we usually hear from.

Another way is probably to use a Linux Kernel-like list: http://isis.poly.edu/kulesh/stuff/src/klist/

Probably a dumb question: Are the reviews private (or only shared with friends) or public like other sites?

Aikido

I would have liked to see him at FCC. Nevertheless a welcome change in appointments.

One of the big problems is there is no incentive for repeating or asserting previous results/findings. So even if someone is doubtful of an assertion made there is no incentive to follow up and verify the assertion in general. I don't think sharing code or secret data cleaning methods is going to bring much change unless someone is rewarded for repeating the results.

Reminded me of Epic Windows 98 Logon: http://i.imgur.com/JPxql.gif

Can we turn down this 'author-is-using-a-cheap-trick-to-attract-audience' volume around here. I don't think Bruce Eckel needs to attract audience so badly that he will do it purposefully. Granted, title is not reflective of the content but give the authors some benefit of the doubt. Let's do a quick Google search on authors before we write stuff like this.

We can also look at it as Apple viewing this from customer perspective (fragmented vs. integrated) and Google viewing this from production and development philosophy point of view. Which view is more relevant to a customer? (where a customer is your regular Joe/Jane)

One of the reasons CDC can't predict as quickly as Google can is because it takes weeks for data "from thousands of regional hospitals, etc." to get to CDC.

Looks like there needs to be some data engineering to be done to back memory up with disk storage. I think you guys, by now, have enough information about users and checkins to create algorithms that can determine "hot" checkins vs. "cold" checkins as and when they come in. Because not every user is the same, a more user-centric view can definitely help you come up with a more scalable (or graciously failing) system. For example, I don't checkin as much as some of my friends who checkin 10-15 times a day. So, there is no point in giving my checkins as much priority as those busy folks.

I think it is a good idea but I will wait for the storm to settle.

Has anyone tried Facebook Scribe?