justicezyx

210 ms·

1981.
by justicezyx 12y ago
Interesting, I have no such feeling of 'casual reading of it leads one to believe that Google is engaging in Censorship'.
1982.
by justicezyx 12y ago
hmm... It is widely known that players are now must more protected by rules than 5 years ago. The fouls on Messis would be considered too gentle for Ronaldo (not C. Ronaldo)...
1983.
by justicezyx 12y ago
Well, qq space is more like an half-heartened adventure from Tecent. By its nature, it is in conflict with QQ the IM. And with success on the IM side, there is no growing space for qq space. It's never being updated fundamentally since
1984.
by justicezyx 12y ago
Patent officers give no damn to Knuth! ...
1985.
by justicezyx 12y ago
Your logic simply disallow any meaningful discussion. After all, everything starts small.
1986.
by justicezyx 12y ago
Spanner has "interval" in its time. It uses high-accuracy atomic clocks to narrow the uncertainty window. It actually proves that Lamport's technique is more fundamental, because even with such hardware, you still can run int
1987.
by justicezyx 12y ago
"It's not terribly surprising that if causality is baked into your specification, then you're going to have to use causality as part of your implementation." I dont understand this statement. Causality is the base of th
1988.
by justicezyx 12y ago
+1, really has no comments, completely agree, down vote at will...
1989.
by justicezyx 12y ago
Hmm... This does cast a shadow on Twitter's future. It's a shadow, so it does not have solid ground to back it, but it's a shadow, so it makes people nervous.
1990.
by justicezyx 12y ago
RIM has never been even remotely close to IBM's market/general-social influence. The comparison is certainly a poor one. By this argument, we can safely say "X is dead, since RIM dies in < 5 years.". Substitute X with
1991.
by justicezyx 12y ago
It's relevant in the sense that it is still very important player in the market it participates in. Granted, the relevance is not a fashionable one. By all measures, IBM != dead (for any predictable future period).
1992.
by justicezyx 12y ago
So that's way Google exited China, right? ...
1993.
by justicezyx 12y ago
Given Baidu's long history of being "cooperative" with Government, I cannot support such a company to be an effective competitor to Google. Besides, deep learning is about far more than just search.
1994.
by justicezyx 12y ago
I think it's natural for Baidu to offer this kind of search capability as a means to hunt down restricted information disguised in non-text format.
1995.
by justicezyx 13y ago
Yes, I knew this 10 years ago in college. And Singapore is considered a pioneer in intelligent transportation back then. Not sure if this is still the case.
1996.
by justicezyx 13y ago
General public's tastes and interests can be shifted. Many years ago, Chinese people value hardwork and intelligence. Now they admire same thing as Americans smartness and fame.
1997.
by justicezyx 13y ago
It's not about Ritchie is/not more important, it's about Ritchie did not get the honor and people's appreciate he deserves. Think about it, Jobs did great work with an big company, and he almost claimed all credit of App
1998.
by justicezyx 13y ago
I personally attribute your kind of mindset as one of the major reasons of US' setback in RD & technology leadership...