Matches for diana_coman, 488 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Mon Oct 05 09:59:49 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> being important and all
Mon Oct 05 09:59:46 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> basically a uni professor who had no idea of the topic but just heard he had to say something on it
Mon Oct 05 09:59:18 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> had some fun reading them
Mon Oct 05 09:59:13 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> not to mention some "research"
Mon Oct 05 09:59:06 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> fwiw I saw first-hand the horrible things google/search-reliance can do for lazy people too - there were some very sad (or laughable if so inclined) articles on Bitcoin in ACM magazine
Mon Oct 05 09:56:00 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> well yes, but uhm, not really sure they'd come all the way from australia, nz and whatever else, every time
Mon Oct 05 09:54:08 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> whether it's that thread or the other one starts with, doesn't make a huge diff
Mon Oct 05 09:53:53 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> the rest is discovered through connections anyway
Mon Oct 05 09:53:45 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> so you need just a start on the web
Mon Oct 05 09:53:39 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> so it doesn't really matter if it hid 1 of 6 - if it is any good, it will be referenced anyway
Mon Oct 05 09:53:25 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> the thing is that's usually just the start of something anyway
Mon Oct 05 09:52:48 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> well, if the guy was an idiot and did not update his page, what can one do
Mon Oct 05 09:51:10 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> assuming the guy doesn't have his own page updated for some reason
Mon Oct 05 09:50:41 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> it's still kind of ok for specific stuff, more like bookmarking kind of thing - I know what I'm searching for and roughly where it is, I just need the quick path to it (as in search on dl.acm for articles of X on topic Y or in journal Z)
Mon Oct 05 09:48:56 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> so it's broken for sure
Mon Oct 05 09:48:50 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> and when I got there I had been right, the key words were exactly as given etc
Mon Oct 05 09:48:34 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> and it did not find them
Mon Oct 05 09:48:32 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> well, I think it might head that way, in the sense that it happened more than once that I searched for things with precise and specific keywords I knew were in there
Mon Oct 05 09:47:43 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> so no
Mon Oct 05 09:47:28 UTC 2015 <diana_coman> IF I have no choice but to start that way, I would afterwards check the source basically