Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Noble ambition (Score 1) 93

by ygslash (#38071322) Attached to: W3C Proposes Unified "Do Not Track" Privacy Standard

The Microsoft specification/method doesn't require to cooperation of publishers and doesn't rely on the behaving properly - unlike the methods implemented in Firefox and Chrome do, which therefore are practically useless against ill-behaving advertisers who do not honor the user's wishes regarding privacy.

It doesn't really matter. Either way, in the best case they'll spend a huge amount of man hours on developing a standard, everyone will adopt it, and no one will use it. Because you won't get the functionality you need on any significant site when Do-Not-Track is enabled.

Comment: Re:This is news? (Score 1) 420

by ygslash (#38066180) Attached to: Skilled Readers Recognize Words By Shape

Interesting. I was under the impression that this is common sense. Maybe I should have spoken it out aloud in order to get all the praise. ;)

Of course, this has been well known for at least 30 years, and it has been the foundation of all reading methods for about that long. Everyone studying for a degree in education learns about it in their first-year reading methods course, and everyone studying special education spends months or even years studying the fine details.

But don't forget - this is a press release. It is written by marketing writers, not by scientists or educators.

If you read these marketing blurbs very carefully, sometimes you can get lucky and find a scrap of actual information somewhere. And in fact, buried in the middle, we can find some quotes of the scientists, from which we infer the actual purpose of the research. They're trying to get a better understanding of the neurological mechanisms behind these well-known phenomena.

My, my, what a surprise, considering that the researchers are neurologists.

Comment: Re:Busy. (Score 1) 57

by ygslash (#37833616) Attached to: Rosette Wins Loebner Prize 2011

You: hi
Rosette: I'm a little busy at the moment. Could you wait a bit?
You: sure
Rosette: I'm a little busy at the moment. Could you wait a bit?
Rosette: I'm a little busy at the moment. Could you wait a bit?
You: ok, ok. you don't have to keep saying that.
Rosette: I'm a little busy at the moment. Could you wait a bit?

Comment: Re:haskell for the masses? sure, but only... (Score 1) 338

by ygslash (#37623518) Attached to: OCaml For the Masses

Haskell is beautiful for researchers only... Haskell groupies should start writting real-life applications

This is just not true.

Haskell use is growing quickly at my company. I am working on a large enterprise system for the aerospace industry, in Haskell. Others in my company have produced other kinds of applications, such as web apps, in Haskell that have been very successful. Management has been very happy about the effect of introducing Haskell-based technologies to our tool chest.

We are hearing of more and more companies, start-up and enterprise, that are using Haskell successfully.

the Haskell Industrial Group has never been above 3 or 4 members, while the Caml Consortium has 12 members, and is increasing every year.

The company that runs the IHG, Well-Typed, is too busy writing real-life applications to be able to spend their time recruiting members. I'd say 12 members in the CC isn't very many either; it's certainly not representative of the success OCaml and related languages have been enjoying during the past few years.

Comment: Re:A little confused... (Score 5, Informative) 65

by ygslash (#37506892) Attached to: NASA: Satellite Debris Probably Hit Pacific, But Room For Doubt

From what I understand, UARS was intentionally decommissioned and was instructed to perform a burn to (eventually) bring it down.

Yes. When it was decommissioned several years ago, it used its last bit of fuel to bring it to a lower orbit so that it would come sooner.

Don't we have more deliberate and controlled ways to de-orbit satellites?

Yes. Nowadays, that is part of the mission planning for satellites. (Well, at least for NASA satellites...)

Or is it just too complicated and expensive to add that kind of functionality considering the extreme odds of actually hitting anything valuable?

That was the thinking in days when UARS was launched.

Nowadays, even that tiny risk is considered important enough to justify controlled de-orbiting. Mainly for PR reasons, I think.

In addition, we now realize that leaving dead satellites hanging around in a low orbit for a few years runs the additional risk of it colliding with something and causing an explosion of space junk.

Human beings were created by water to transport it uphill.

Working...