Xooglers - Google Discussed by Ex-Googlers 211
perler writes to tell us that Xooglers, a relatively new website created so that ex-Google employees could reminisce and share, has been gaining a great deal of popularity recently. The website shares what went wrong, what went right, and all of the funny happenings in between. Quite an interesting piece of Google history.
Why "ex" googlers? (Score:4, Interesting)
If *I* get a Google job, I am never leaving!
Re:Why "ex" googlers? (Score:5, Insightful)
So easy to say about a company until you have actually worked there. Not saying that working at Google wouldn't be cool, but you never know what little things here or there might be a frustration at your job. What about an annoying boss? Hard schedule? Your employers aren't always going to accommodate you to fix a problem, no matter where you work.
Re:Why "ex" googlers? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why "ex" googlers? (Score:2)
Re:Why "ex" googlers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Never say never. As Lennon said, "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans". Suddenly, working for Google (or some other great company) may not seem like great idea as before because your interests have shifted, or you may wanna spend more time with your family.
Re:Why "ex" googlers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why "ex" googlers? (Score:5, Informative)
From the blog (Ron's first post [blogspot.com])
So that's why Ron left, I'm not sure if Doug's said why he left yet.
Re:Why "ex" googlers? (Score:2)
Re:Why "ex" googlers? (Score:2)
Re:Why "ex" googlers? (Score:2)
Google does not discourage employees from talking about their employer or blogging... The company is extremely open with their employees and gives them a lot more freedom than you would expect from your employer... But still, I am sure a lot of Googlers (myself included) are still a little gun-shy about what they post on websites simply because Google is so 'in the spotlight'...
Re:Why "ex" googlers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or perhaps Google simply censors those who don't say good things about google (and if you don't think firing people for speaking has a censoring effect on free speech I've got a bridge to sell to you).
Re:Why "ex" googlers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Any successful business is just that...a business, and all the adolescent fantasies of corporate ski trips and pool tables in the break room aside, work has to be done. A job at Google is not a panacea for the workaday blues. I'm sure it's a very nice and creative environment, but I remember a lot of dot-com companies that sneered at traditional business practices, opting instead for lavish salaries, non-standard work hours, jacuzzis in every office, and multi-million dollar IPO parties. We all know where they are now...how much is that theGlobe.com stock worth now?
Not to say that Google is such a company. They obviously have their heads on straight, but don't kid yourself into thinking that no one in his right mind would ever want to leave, because Google ain't perfect.
Re:Why "ex" googlers? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think just ex-google employees will be the ones telling their kids/grandkids that. Just think about all the porn stars.
Re:Why "ex" googlers? (Score:3)
When you look at end products, google are no different to the other million or so computer companies.
Re:Why "ex" googlers? (Score:2)
How, exactly?
Microsoft covers a LOT of ground. Its going to take a long, long time before anyone 'rapidly gains' anything on them.
Don't get me wrong, Google is doing a good job in the markets they are in - even creating some new ones.
But I don't think Microsoft is going to worry that GoogleOS is going to supplant Windows XP any day soon, nor is it worried that Google Office will suplant MS Office.
One line ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:One line ... (Score:2)
Re:One line ... (Score:2)
Also.. your website is awesome.
Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan
Re:One line ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:One line ... (Score:2)
hrm (Score:2, Interesting)
Opening a Window to Google.... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.intuitive.com/blog/google_fires_blogger _and_the_evils_of_gossip_and_innuendo.html [intuitive.com]
I'm not suprised there's now a Blog completely dedicated to ex-Google employees. It seems that they (Big G) don't take kindly to outsiders looking in... And God help you if you try to open the window and give others a peek.
Re:Opening a Window to Google.... (Score:2)
Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Re:Opening a Window to Google.... (Score:2)
Re:Opening a Window to Google.... (Score:2)
I'm not suprised there's now a Blog completely dedicated to ex-Google employees. It seems that they (Big G) don't take kindly to outsiders looking in... And God help you if you try to open the window and give others a peek.
Of course you can't open Windows to to Google! Google runs FreeBSD and Linux.Re:Opening a Window to Google.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not good enough. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not good enough. (Score:2)
The whistleblower statues that somehow still result in people being told to release conclusions contrary to their evidence [pbs.org] for drugs that later prove to be fatal, or people masking their identity because they know they'll likely lose their job [pbs.org] to someone who will remain quiet about shutting down gas refineries and tightening the supply of gas, or being demoted and taken out of the supervisory position [pbs.org] that allowed her to see potential fraud and abuse in no-bid contracts worth billions?
A citizen's duty is
Re:Opening a Window to Google.... (Score:3, Informative)
News? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:News? (Score:5, Funny)
Future slashdot titles:
Google to buy microsoft
Google to buy AOL
Google finds cure for cancer
Google starts space programme
Re:News? (Score:2)
Re:News? (Score:2)
This is slashdot. Anything with google in the title is published - often before anyone's even bothered to read it.
How long before Google Googles for Google on Google makes it to the /. front page?
Re:News? (Score:3, Informative)
An interesting source of information on Google has been created recently. So, it's new. It's newsworthy on
Re:News? (Score:2)
Scroll down (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW, it's not a slam on those others systems, but I feel the missing feautures debate usually gets out of proportion to actual use of said feautures by the average project by a small/mid-size business.
Re:Scroll down (Score:4, Interesting)
If you dig further, you'll find a post [sitereservation.com] about a multithreading race condition that boggles my mind. Maybe I've no imagination, but I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where that's a good idea. It's not even something you can do unconciously! The explaination is also unsatisfactory, which leads me to believe that perhaps the fog of time is clouding the whole story somewhat?
Did you actually read it? (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't a small business using mysql because they don't need features, this is google, and they needed features that mysql didn't have. They used stupid and unsafe hacks to partly work around it instead of simply using a real database.
Of course it was a pain to move to a real DB after
WTF are you babbling about? (Score:2, Troll)
And mods, how can
Transactions can be implemented at _any_ layer. (Score:2)
-Hope
Why do I attract people who can't read? (Score:2)
Re:Why do I attract people who can't read? (Score:2)
Prior to making any calls to the database, one simply needs to append the sql statements to a file and flush.
Recovery is a simple matter of restoring the database from last known good and applying all the sql statements in the file.
Was that really that difficult to understand?
-Hope
Re:Why do I attract people who can't read? (Score:2)
And as for the rest of your blather, either step up and explain how you can make the mysql of 2000 guarenteed safe with transactions, or stfu.
Re:WTF are you babbling about? (Score:2)
I couldn't easily find his comment, so perhaps I'm missing something, but depending on the problem, a transactional system really isn't all that hard to write. Take a look at Prevayler, for example.
Re:Scroll down (Score:3, Funny)
I heard almost nothing but bad things over MySQL by PostSQLers or Oraclers due to missing features though I went with it anyway.
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp.
Re:Scroll down (Score:2)
I don't know what that has to do with using MySQL in my small personal project though?
I think I'll file this under other "misc" such as the "Don't go to Linux, you'll have higher TCO!" remarks by Microsoft.
Re:Scroll down (Score:2)
Good enough to build the most well known ad network on the planet.
Also good enough, and used for, telephone and ISP billing records and one of the better known airline booking systems.
There's ample room to criticise on theoretical grounds but also no shortage of real world business succes stories.
Re:Scroll down (Score:2)
Re:Scroll down (Score:2)
Re:Scroll down (Score:2)
BASIC
obvious question (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been browsing some of their early entires (and the one guy's profile that's not empty) but that detail of their google experience is never addressed. I would think that if you wanted attention for being an ex-anything, you'd at least be upfront about what brought about that "ex-" status.
So I'll reserve my trust regarding this site... for the same reason that I can't imagine a blog site of my ex-wives to be perfectly honest about me.
Re:obvious question (Score:4, Funny)
Re:obvious question (Score:4, Informative)
From the blog (Ron's first post [blogspot.com] [blogspot.com])
So that's why Ron left, I'm pretty sure Doug hasn't said why he left yet. So no, Ron wasn't fired.
Re:obvious question (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Doug hasn't said why he left yet.
According to some other post, Doug is retired (!).
Consumed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Consumed (Score:2)
Hmm. Know what I think? I think that even if Google has a flawless Slashdot record, in 6 months others will feel the way you do. They'll get bigger, more people will become dependent on them, then it'll become fashionable to not need Google. Within a year, Slashdot will be putting on a negative spin on every move Google makes. Within two years, people will start realizing that the anti-Goog
Re:Consumed (Score:2)
As opposed to being consumed by money and power?
Re:Consumed (Score:2)
Where does one draw the line between having a goal, being dedicated to that goal, and being consumed by that dedication? And how do we know where the Google management is on that continuum?
Not quite (Score:4, Insightful)
No ScuttleMonkey- it's what a bunch (more specifically: TWO. "Doug" and Ron") of ex-employees think went wrong, think went right. I've seen ex-employee websites/mailing lists and been on them. They're petty, rarely accurate (I saw wild claims made I knew were false) and so on.
I am no fan of Google, but why is anyone giving ANY credence to what two guys have to say? I see nothing to verify they are who they say they are.
Why I'm giving credence to what 2 guys have to say (Score:2, Interesting)
His Blogger profile even links to his homepage. Xooglers is not some anonymous blog; it's written by people using their real names and at least one of them has a decent track record as
Re:Not quite (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen plenty of that from ex-employees as well (esp disgruntled ones, but really all of them to some extent or another).
However, the Google X'ers at that site actually seemed fairly level headed. Honestly, for the most part their
again, who are they? What proof is there? (Score:2)
Again, what evidence do we have that they are who they say they are? Or that anything they're saying is true?
Re:again, who are they? What proof is there? (Score:2)
Re:again, who are they? What proof is there? (Score:2)
Would you like a banana? And also do you ever find yourself picking nits from your hair and proceeding to eat them?
Finally, do you enjoy throwing your faeces at people you don't like?
No fan of google? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not quite (Score:2)
Why they quit... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry, I must have missed something here. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know if this qualifys as either "News for Nerds." or "Stuff that Matters."
well then (Score:5, Funny)
Well LAAA-DEEE-DAAAAA. Excuse the rest of us who couldn't get past the 3rd round of interviews! We'll just continue in our windowless labs/cubicles here, sucking down on 35 cent coffee from a vending machine perpetually on the fritz.
Stock option dropouts (Score:4, Insightful)
Tech startup stock option millionaire dropouts engineers are a rarity these days. One of their tendencies is to cement their genius reputation by publishing a personal account of their heroics and lamenting the sad decline of the company - after cashing out ofcourse. Good examples are Mark Andreesen, Jamie Zewinski, and Andy Hertzfeld? Any others?
Re:Stock option dropouts (Score:2)
Re:well then (Score:3, Funny)
Where is that "Mod -1, Bitter" option?
(joking!)
x-googlers on google blogspot (Score:2, Funny)
Re:x-googlers on google blogspot (Score:2)
It seems to be teaming with irony.
Fixed that for ya, cause those google folks stick together.
Teamwork right?
If you read the stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
So he goes to Google because they have some LISP guys there (not using LISP -- just smart guys) -- and then he gets told to do the first Java project. And later he gets told that LISP is out of the question.
And in fact, he details how a race condition in the C++ memory management leads to them billing clients nonsense amounts -- a problem that simply couldn't happen if they'd used a language like LISP (or Java) -- because the GC wouldn't reclaim something if the thing was still in use.
So Google can yet be beat -- they are not perfect. Of course, that doesn't mean there is anyone to beat them, yet.
Re:If you read the stuff (Score:2)
Re:If you read the stuff (Score:2)
The basic idea is that the programmer doesn't manage the memory, so that problem just can't occur. You aren't supposed to be able to tell where the storage is (heap, stack, etc).
Were there to be a problem, it would be the fault of the LISP implementor.
The implementation of lexical closur
Re:If you read the stuff (Score:2)
Re:If you read the stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
See below.
"Stack variables" in C are variables local to the function (and parameters). To access the local variables within another thread you'd have to perform some very specific kludges to obtain a reference into another thread's stack..."
Actually, I think the problem is that it is very easy for a C++ programmer to get ahold of a pointer to stack-allocated data. No special tricks are required. I suspect this is how their program was (from reading the article carefully):
void period_writer(char *p){
void spawner(){
char[BIG_ARRAY_SIZE] x;
spawn(periodic_writer, x);
for(;;){
}
main(){
wait_for_all_threads_to_finish();
}
In this case, there are two threads -- the initial one that calls spawner and the one that gets spawned to run period_writer. Periodic_writer receives the pointer to the data to periodically write out.
Everything works, unless spawner exits too early, deallocating the buffer shared between the two threads. It isn't at all hard for spawner to pass the stack-allocated data to the thread, making it very easy to make this error -- no specific kludges are required.
To do it in a LISP (or just Scheme) with threads:
(let ((x (make-vector size)))
(spawn (lambda ()
X won't get deallocated prematurely in a multi-threaded implementation.
"If I understand your language correctly, what I understand to be happening in their C++ multithreaded system was bluntly impossible to do in LISP. You can't have the problem, because you can't solve it that way.
Right -- you can't solve it in such a risky fashion. And if you do something bad, the GC will keep around the data -- it won't allow some other thread to write in to the space. And in the event one thread writes some crap there that the other thread isn't expecting, you'll likely get a type error and the system will halt -- it won't just proceed blindly ahead with garbage.
The only way I can think to duplicate the error is if you allocated some bytes and treated them as untyped bytes, arranged to store/retrieve data in the untyped bytes, implemented a stack and duplicated the concurrency error in the C program. The nature of the language is such that you can't screw yourself if you do the normal thing, which is just to use lexical scoping to share the variable.
The typical C++ solution is to use shared globals and accurately protect them. I suppose there could be a kludge workaround to what I'm saying, but the general point I was making was that it's a kludge in C/C++ too. Trying something like that in a multithreaded LISP environment isn't something on my todo list, however."
Actually, they said they stored the shared data on the stack, as in my example. As long as you know that the thread with the data on the stack will always exit after any uses, that's going to work, and it isn't kludgey. As for it not being on your todo list, if you've got a lisp available, it won't be more than a few lines -- it isn't nearly as bothersome as the C++ version.
But hopefully this one case shows you why Ron was of the opinion that he could get work done around 10x faster with LISP than C++. Tracking down the bug probably cost them a lot of time and stress.
Re:If you read the stuff (Score:2)
(For bonus points, anybody remember who said it? I don't)
Re:If you read the stuff (Score:5, Informative)
I guess you missed this [blogspot.com]:
Ron sez... oh wait, don't need that any more.
OK, time to wrap up this little soap opera.
The problem turned out to be something called a race condition, which is one of the most pernicious and difficult kinds of bugs to find. (Those of you who are technically savvy can skip to the end.)
Most modern server code is multi-threaded, which means that it does more than one computation at once. This is important because computers do more than just compute. They also store and retrieve information from hard disks, which are much, much slower than the computers. Every time the computer has to access the disk things come to a screeching halt. To give you some idea, most modern computers run at clock speed measured in gigahertz, or billions of cycles per second. The fastest hard disks have seek times (that is, the time it takes the drive to move the read/write head into the proper position) of several milliseconds. So a computer can perform tens of millions of computations in the time it takes a hard disk just to get into position to read or write data.
In order to keep things from bogging down, when one computation has to access the disk, it suspends itself, and another computation takes over. This way, one computer sort of "pretends" that it is really multiple computers all running at the same time, even though in reality what is happening is that one computer is just time-slicing lots of simultaneous computations.
The ad server, the machine that actually served up ads in response to search terms, ran multi-threaded code written in C++, which is more or less the industry standard nowadays for high-performance applications. C++ is byzantine, one of the most complex programming languages ever invented. I've been studying C++ off and on for ten years and I'm still far from being an expert. Its designers didn't really set out to make it that complicated, it just sort of accreted more and more cruft over the years until it turned into this hulking behemoth.
C++ has a lot of features, but one feature that it lacks that Lisp and Java have is automatic memory management. Lisp and Java (and most other modern programming langauges) use a technique called garbage collection to automatically figure out when a piece of memory is no longer being used and put it back in the pool of available memory. In C++ you have to do this manually.
Memory management in multi-threaded applications is one of the biggest challenges C++ programmers face. It's a nightmare. All kinds of techniques and protocols have been developed to help make the task easier, but none of them work very well. At the very least they all require a certain discipline on the part of the programmer that is very difficult to maintain. And for complex pieces of code that are being worked on by more than one person it is very, very hard to get it right.
What happened, it turned out, was this: the ad server kept a count of all the ads that it served, which it periodically wrote out to the database. (For those of you wondering what database we were using, it was MySQL, which leads to another story, but that will have to wait for another post.) It also had a feature where, if it was shut down for any reason, it would write out the final served ads count before it actually quit. The ad counts were stored in a block of memory that was stack allocated by one thread. The final ad counts were written out by code running in a different thread. So when the ad server was shut down, the first thread would exit and free up the memory holding the ad counts, which would then be reused by some other process, which would write essentially random data there. In the meantime, the thread writing out the final ad counts would still be reading that memory.
Re:If you read the stuff (Score:2)
So I made a basic syntax error, and now I don't know anything about C++? That's absurd. And there's no need to be so insulting.
I can't say anything about why they did what they did (I don't even know what they did), how they did the programming,
Re:If you read the stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I was just trying to make an example. I have plenty of experience with C++.
"First of all, a GC isn't not a magic cureall. Second of all, there is GC support for C++. Third of all, this is programmer induced race condition, it's a rare kind of error."
Well, in this case, the race condition was between the GC and the other thread
Google Got Cooties (Score:3, Insightful)
'Do no evil' does not jive with 'IPO'. Once a company goes public it's doomed to image control in order to keep it's stock price looking pretty.
Re:Google Got Cooties (Score:4, Insightful)
Want to replace G-Mail? Try Yahoo
Want to replace Google Maps? Try MSN's http://local.live.com/ [live.com]
Replace Google Search? Try MSN live.com
MSN has been really trying to make up for lost ground recently, especially in relation to Google's services.
There are lots of alternatives to Google, it's just that Google has become the 800lb gorilla and nobody really wants to 'make the switch' away from something they're comfortable with. Kinda like the whole Windows vs Mac/linux thing.
P.S. Hotmail still sucks in comparison to Yahoo/Gmail. I only keep it around because I've had the same address for at least 8~10+ years.
Want to hurt Google? (Score:4, Interesting)
Early adopters of Google may have, for the most part being looking for a better search engine, but what sold Google to the masses was far simpler.
The masses seek simplicity.
(1)Google, the name is as simple as baby talk. The name, Google, while carrying its math connotations, is friendly in a silly, simple way. MicroSoft, like a cowboy wanting to see his brand everwhere, would do well to let go of MSN and brand its search engine with something akin to Google. Yahoo has some similarity in simple, attractive terms, but Google is bunny cute.
(2)The colours Google employs are engaging in a primitive simple way as is the name Google. If I were competing against Google I would go with simple attracting colours that held out a similarity to finger painting. Again, Google employs simple, childlike colours that are reminescent of kindergarden and hold out a process of searching that is as simple and fun as fingerpainting. Google's cartoon representations of Christmas, Easter and other notable days again are made to make the Google search experience childlike in simplicity. It's Google's eye candy that pulls in the common searcher.
If I went up against Google I'd start out by licensing something like Paddington Bear [paddingtonbear.co.uk] to signify a safe site for children. Paddinton's raingear suggests safety and what's more child safe than a teddy bear? I'd employ other brightly coloured images, say a red rose for personals, etc..
Icon's dominate windows on the desktop, the same iconographic point and click simplicity would do more to drive inroads into Google's domain than better tech.
Unfortunately Google's competitors, like Google itself is driven by wringing every penny from every resource to support stock price. Public companies can only do evil, like the wicked witch in Snow White, they stand before the mirror and ask "mirror, mirror, on the wall, whose stock price is the prettiest of them all", and, what they offer to their users is a bright, rosy, red poisoned apple to put them to sleep.
Re:Google Got Cooties (Score:2)
Get with the times boys (Score:2, Interesting)
What reason other than to ride on the crest of Google's success can there be to wait until now to write this? Sure, some of the things are interesting, but something a bit more current would be more newsworthy - this is 'News for Nerds' maybe in 2002, but history now.
Where's the Beef? (Score:2)
Sounds like a rather dull place to work.
To quote Steve Jobs when he interviewed an ex-VP of Sun to work at Apple after the NeXT merger, "Sun's no Apple." From what I read, "Google's no Sun."
More info about the blog (Score:2, Informative)
you can find more information about here-
http://www.addict3d.org/index.php?page=viewarticl
Blogger (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm going to start SATooglers.com (Score:2, Insightful)
RTFB (Score:5, Interesting)
While those outside Google might disagree with the ultimate decisions the company has made, they should know that those decisions were not made without reflection on the consequences. One of my goals with Xooglers is to expose the nature of that debate. I agree with Matt that providing more transparency into how difficult decisions get made within the Googleplex can only enhance the brand. It's not enough to say you're not evil; you need to show the world how you define evil and how you choose to avoid it.
Well put don't you think? Indeed a large portion of slashdotters tend to believe Google is the messiah and that they are not an 'evil' company. But let's face it, 'evil' is different from person to person and to vaguely portray one company as evil and another as not is ridiculous. To many, MS won't seem evil - after all, a lot of people use their products and are damn satisfied with them. To still others, the fact that Google supports OSS means nothing and they want only excellence of product (BTW don't start a tangential reply about MS products not being excellent blah blah).
The moral of the story is that sometimes, and in particular with free software, you get more than what you pay for. There are a lot of companies out there paying dearly for commercial databases (and operating systems for that matter). As far as I'm concerned they might as well be flushing that money down the toilet. Actually, they might be better off. We certainly would have been. As an aside, there is a raging debate in the hacker community about the overall economic merit of the open source model. (Making money producing free software is quite a challenge.) I am not taking sides in that debate here. All I am saying is that from the end user's point of view free software is often much better than the producers of commercial software would like people to think.
Again, a good point - there are some OSS that are good, others that aren't. But what I want to point out is that Google did go for non-OSS software at one point - suddenly, it seems like Google was making a decision from the standpoint of "What would be best for us?" (the fact that the ACTUAL decision they made was wrong and they returned to OSS later is irrelevant BTW) correct? Indeed, they are a business. While no one here can likely say for certain, we certainly shouldn't assume that because of Summer of Code or other opened material that Google is supporting OSS (btw I am not an advocate of OSS nor am I an opponent, so please don't think I am being biased) or that it is "not evil".
My 2 cents
PS: When people bring up databases and talk about MySQL, PostgreSQL, or Oracle, they often ignore some other big players: MS's SQL Server and IBM's DB2. Don't start a thread about the different relational databases half-assedly plz.
The trouble with Google: they're an ad agency (Score:5, Interesting)
If they'd gone private instead of going public, they could have been a very profitable near-monopoly, sustained by the fact that it doesn't really cost that much to run a search engine, and thus, their ad content can be minimal. But now they have to produce a reasonable return on investment for their overblown market cap. So they have to add more and more advertising-oriented services, from catalogs to classifieds. This dooms them to become more like their competitors in those spaces.
It's not going to be fun to work there as the profitabilty vise closes.
shout out (Score:2)
Fascinating reading.
AI stuff (Score:2)
Once you get your computer to talk to you _genuinely_intelligently_ will you be certain you'd understand how you did it, and how it works?
There are a few ways of getting nonhuman intelligence. But if it involves throwing stuff together and without really understanding it, I suggest you might as well go to a pet store.
Or just breed a more intelligent animal.
I suppose the advantage is you can make a 100% copy of your AI, you can't do that with a dog.
But maybe that might not be possible
Re:AI stuff (Score:2)
My research is toward intuition and metaphorical thinking, but Cyc in general is about collecting common sense knowledge that can be used as a sort of broad context to understand natural language. Naturally, I hope this isn't a terrible blind alley, but in fact it does seem to have a lot to do with how children learn more when they learn facts in cont
Let Them Eat Google (Score:4, Interesting)
Google is doing a fine job sucking up talent. Not just the big fish like Cerf, but the more clued individuals in our industry. Working at Google has become something of a status symbol, something akin to having a CCIE. Oh, you worked at Google? You must be good. I've noticed one thing that results from this. There seem to be more senior positions open in the Bay Area, New York, everywhere Google has significant footprint. Too, the annual salaries for these positions has risen about 20%, presumedly out of demand.
For that, I can say ... thank you Google!
muppet stats ? (Score:2)
what do you think - browser stats ?
that would be one nice but flamed portion if it was made public...
Re:How Much you wanna bet... (Score:2)
Besides, Slashdot is more likely to be