tumbling over some code

We have a kind of social dilemma which comes from architectural creep.

We had an Internet that was designed around the notion of peerage - machines with no hierarchical relationship to one another, and no guarantee about their internal architectures or behaviours, communicating through a series of rules which allowed disparate, heterogeneous networks to be networked together around the assumption that everybody’s equal.

In the Web the social harm done by the client-server model arises from the fact that logs of Web servers become the trails left by all of the activities of human beings, and the logs can be centralised in servers under hierarchical control.

Web logs become power.

With the exception of search, which is a service that nobody knows how to decentralise efficiently, most of these services do not actually rely upon a hierarchical model. They really rely upon the Web - that is, the non-hierarchical peerage model created by Tim Berners-Lee, and which is now the dominant data structure in our world.

The services are centralised for commercial purposes. The power that the Web log holds is monetisable, because it provides a form of surveillance which is attractive to both commercial and governmental social control.

So the Web, with services equipped in a basically client-server architecture, becomes a device for surveillance as well as providing additional services. And surveillance becomes the hidden service wrapped inside everything we get for free.


In the field of numerical algorithms, however, the improvement can be quantified. Here is just one example, provided by Professor Martin Grötschel of Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum für Informationstechnik Berlin:

Grötschel, an expert in optimization, observes that a benchmark production planning model solved using linear programming would have taken 82 years to solve in 1988, using the computers and the linear programming algorithms of the day. Fifteen years later – in 2003 – this same model could be solved in roughly 1 minute, an improvement by a factor of roughly 43 million. Of this, a factor of roughly 1,000 was due to increased processor speed, whereas a factor of roughly 43,000 was due to improvements in algorithms! Grötschel also cites an algorithmic improvement of roughly 30,000 for mixed integer programming between 1991 and 2008.




The number one question people ask is,

"How do the printers communicate with Google Cloud Print?"

The answer is,

"It depends on whether the printer is a cloud-aware printer or a legacy printer."

Legacy Printer
Every printer in existence today falls into this category.



mattcutts on Oct 21, 4:46 PM said:
Hi Eric, the answer to the headline’s question

"Is Google Guilty Of Deliberate Query Sabotage?"

is no.

We’ve talked about the fact that results estimates are just estimates for years, see e.g. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4814548594071648913# or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ix3mHeL7hg for more details, including the fact that we only return three significant digits on our results estimates.

As to why the query [A B -C] can return more estimated results than [A B], that’s easy to explain. The query [A B -C] causes us to go deeper through our posting lists looking for matches, which can lead to more accurate (and larger) results estimates. Other things can cause us to go deeper in finding matches, such as clicking deeper in search results.

Results estimates can also vary based on which data centers or indices your query hits, as well as what language you’re searching in. It certainly has nothing to do with whether you’re a “possible enemy of Google,” as you put it. We try to be very clear that our results estimates are just that—estimates.

In theory we could spend cycles on that aspect of our system, but in practice we have a lot of other things to work on, and more accurate results estimates is lower on the list than lots of other things.



esquareda:


Here is a simple Unicode browser for people who like looking at characters; you can click on the number below each character to visit its Wikipedia page.

Unicode table for you is a very handy reference.

esquareda:

Here is a simple Unicode browser for people who like looking at characters; you can click on the number below each character to visit its Wikipedia page.

Unicode table for you is a very handy reference.


esquareda:

Create amazing CSS3 styles and animations on your iPad. Preview your work live over Wifi. (via CSS3Machine for iPad)

esquareda:

Create amazing CSS3 styles and animations on your iPad. Preview your work live over Wifi. (via CSS3Machine for iPad)


wiredvanity:

Program or Be Programmed by Douglas Rushkoff (via @BBHLabs)

I bet, that a lot will disagree with Rushkoff’s opinion, but my take is: he couldn’t be more right.



cocoaheads:

Bertrand Serlet on using Apple’s private API’s


cocoaheads:

maclove:

From bottom to top:  15-inch MBP, 13-Inch MacBook, 13-inch MB Air, and an 11-inch MB Air.

The next generation of MacBooks.

cocoaheads:

maclove:

From bottom to top:
15-inch MBP, 13-Inch MacBook, 13-inch MB Air, and an 11-inch MB Air.

The next generation of MacBooks.