Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | nyrina's commentslogin

True, indexing content is not the same. But you can't index anything you haven't already scraped.

Indexing is simply the second step in the the process, scraping is the first step, and (users) searching the index is the third step.


I simply can't believe that they are "working on getting it removed".

If it was a problem they didn't want the whole world to know about, it would've been removed the second they were made aware of the issue.


Have you ever worked for a large company before? There's nothing management loves more than access controls. There are whole software products available, like Confluence, that do nothing but take good open source offerings like various wikis and make it so management has to set permissions for every user for every page to do anything at all. Then whenever you need to make a change it takes a week of meetings to get edit permission for the needed page...


Confluence is awesome, we use it in our company and every user can edit every page (that's how it's set out of the box!). This works great for us and our size.

To bash on Confluence just because your management has set restrictive policies seems a bit unfair.


Why would you expect every random employee to have the necessary access to expedite such a change?

It's 5 AM in Mountain View, they probably have to get someone out of bed. Also, I imagine they would like to figure out where it came from, which may or may not complicate the removal, who knows.


Well, Google doesn't have office only in MV.


They totally have people working on maps in Dublin (for example)


There are the requisite forms to fill out, approvals to be gathered - it's going to take some time...


Seriously? I work at not so small tech company and here one of the managers/director/vp will take a call and the engineer will patch the changes. The call is specially easy is such obvious example of what should be done.


I don't think it's just calling one engineer - it's multiple teams that need to align for the change to push through.


There's almost certainly oodles of caches between the data and the images.


I would love to see something like Football Manager, it's perfect for data extraction, I think, as it's largely a game of data.

I know a few programs are able to read the data, such as FM Genie Scout (Watch out if you download, it's filled with adware) and FMRTE (Paid only).


How is enforcement going to be a large issue? Doesn't every forest have a forester (Not sure if that is what it's called, but we have people who "takes care" of forests in Denmark). If a forester sees people cutting down trees with large machinery, he would just call the police?

I doubt anyone cares if Mr. Random goes into the wood with his axe, chops down a tree he can carry and runs off with it.


It's not necessarily as simple as calling the police in Liberia. Corruption levels there are significantly higher than they are in Denmark. What if the logger pays the policeman to do nothing about it?

Enforcement is definitely going to be a challenge, but hopefully they have a good plan in place.


Aerial photography + incentives paid based on evidence that the forest remains, coupled with dedicating part of the funding to paying locals to help look after it creates a strong incentive shared by many groups to ensure it works.


Simply not true.

The subreddit mods had already told people in a announcement not to post anything of McKayla Maroney and that if any posts containing images of her existed, that they would delete the posts and ban the people posting that.

The subreddit ban came after all of this.


I think in this case, there is a difference between UX and Design. They do overlap, but not completely.

UX is about the user experience - or rather, the user understanding the program.

Design is about the application looking good.

You can have both, or you can have either one, or neither.

The command prompt is a good example of the former - I'm sure we can all agree that the design isn't great, but functionality wise, it's doing it's job perfect. Giving commands to experienced users.

Perhaps it's my understanding of basic 3D programs, but I would point to 3D programs being the exact opposite, having a great design without a good UX. I always feel like I'm limited, in that I don't understand the millions of options. The programs themselves looks great, but I just don't understand how to use 90% of their functions.


That still begs the question. Why are their parts better?


Hondas are known for their reliability. If you don't crash it or trade it in, a Honda can easily go 200-300,000 miles and last for 20+ years. #3 and #4 on the "most stolen cars list" are the Toyota Camry and Corolla, which are the other cars most known for their reliability.

If you're looking to steal a car built before 1997 (17 years ago), there are relatively few other makes that are still on the road. Cars from American automakers rarely make it past 100,000 miles (about 10 years of normal driving) in workable condition; there are simply fewer cars out there to steal.


That sounds awfully low for American automakers. What exactly happens at 100,000 miles?

Generally cars will go through their first big part replacement cycle between 60-100k, these are wearing parts that come to an end at that age. That can cost a couple of thousands but that's just part of normal maintenance and will be 10x cheaper than buying a new car. These Hondas and Corollas sure as hell go through this phase and the next replacement cycle happens maybe another 100k later.

It's my impression that even these cheap little cars in Europe (such as Fiat Punto) can easily go 200,000 miles if only serviced so 100k sounds a bit odd. I've also assumed that the appeal to American cars with their big blocks is because they're built to last and eat hundreds of thousands of miles; this assumption might be outdated, however.


The 100,000 mile cliff is disappearing now. Build quality of American cars rose rapidly in the mid-2000s - for example, Ford repair rate declined nearly 50 percent between 2004 and 2009[1].

I remember reading somewhere that this was driven by accounting improvements that arose from the Enron scandal but I can't find the source now.

[1] http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-reduces-warranty-costs-by-1...


I would guess it's not that their parts are better, but because they are a popular car so there is a larger market of people needing spare parts for that model.


Popularity, longevity of service of the vehicle, and reasonably priced genuine replacement parts all helped to create a market for stolen cars and the parts they provided.


Not better as such, but have more value due to higher demand. Both cars have sold well so there are more out there that need repair from time to time and there are other models out there with the same (or compatible) parts, not just other civic/accord variants.

The age of a model can make a difference too when breaking for parts: newer cars will be covered by warranty, those not long past warranty are likely to be more reliable than those a couple of years older. After a few more years the value drops off because people will start to replace more than repair, so demand for parts falls.


Are you saying that they're stolen for the marketability of their parts because there are more that are stolen?


The marketability of their parts means that there are a lot of legally-owned Hondas which, of course, need parts replaced at times. And because everyone knows there are a lot of Hondas, the owners know it's easy to find a second-hand part from a junkyard or ebay to save money and thus for Hondas there exists a particularly lively market for old parts.

I always buy second-hand parts whenever it makes sense. It doesn't work that well with less popular cars, obviously. Either there aren't second-hand replacements that are easy to find or they're still too expensive (because of said scarcity...) so it makes sense to buy a new replacement part with warranty.


I guess this is one of the times where begging the question is not a fallacy.


Totally. But who's willing to pay for that?


A "programmer" is already somewhat the same as a "builder" is. A programmer programs, just like a builder builds.

A programmer can have a lot of different hats. A hacker (white or black), computer scientist, developer, etc, all do different jobs. You wouldn't put a hacker into a job of medical or financial responsibility, where a minor bug can be fatal or extremely expensive.

A builder can have loads of different hats as well. A carpenter doesn't do the same thing as an iron worker, a plumber or an electrician.

The carpenter probably could do a lot of the same things, with about the same error frequency as a hacker in a financial job would have. That error frequency would also decline as he got better at wiring like an electrician.

That's my view of what the "programmer" word means.


Hint: It starts with "N" and ends in "igger"


Naggers!


did it have any letters in between?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: