Slashdot Mirror

Did you actually post of picture of Steve Jobs as your citation? Try this phone from 2001: Samsung SPH-i300 This is running Palm's OS and looks very much like the precursor to the iPhone. Funny, I don't see Steve Jobs showing any of the phones that don't have keyboards. And just like an Apple fan to claim that a wider selection of phones and features is somehow a flaw. Some people like physical keyboards. I don't myself, but I have to admit that you can type a hell of a lot faster on a physical keyboard than you can on a touch screen keyboard.

Stunning research by the way on pre-iPhone phones. I wonder if you get all of your propaganda from Apple's pie hole.

Email - Gmail #1

Books - Google Books#1. Why is this ranked higher than amazon?

Calendar - Google Calendar #1, Yahoo Calendar #3, Live Calendar #52

News - Google News #1, Yahoo News #8, Microsoft News #50

Videos - Google Videos #1, Youtube #2. I realize youtube is a Google product, but seriously? How is Youtube not #1?

Your search terms seem very hand picked to prove a point.

Now, searches for News, Gmail, Images, Videos, Maps and other product names return google first. But that sort-of makes sense, since those are the product names...

Aside from gmail, those are extremely generic terms. A search for Earth brings up Google earth at number one. It seems a little strange that a search for something as generic as "Wallet", a relatively unknown and new google product, appears #1 in the search results. Or what about Reader, the name of a widely used Adobe product. Google Reader appears #1 even before Adobe Reader. I've never even heard of half the products Google puts at number 1 in their results. I'd expect a fair ranking to put them much lower.

In fact, searching for Maps and Images on Bing returns Google for the first results! Is it an anti-trust violation to name your products intelligently???

But they don't return Bing maps and Bing images first. Rightfully some of the searches above should return google first. Email for example or even Calendar. But returning Google Wallet first for a search for Wallet, at the expense of other more relevent results? What about that 10th result who got pushed to the next page? How does that affect his business, because Google gives itself preferential treatment?

Email - Gmail #1

Books - Google Books#1. Why is this ranked higher than amazon?

Calendar - Google Calendar #1, Yahoo Calendar #3, Live Calendar #52

News - Google News #1, Yahoo News #8, Microsoft News #50

Videos - Google Videos #1, Youtube #2. I realize youtube is a Google product, but seriously? How is Youtube not #1?

Your search terms seem very hand picked to prove a point.

Now, searches for News, Gmail, Images, Videos, Maps and other product names return google first. But that sort-of makes sense, since those are the product names...

Aside from gmail, those are extremely generic terms. A search for Earth brings up Google earth at number one. It seems a little strange that a search for something as generic as "Wallet", a relatively unknown and new google product, appears #1 in the search results. Or what about Reader, the name of a widely used Adobe product. Google Reader appears #1 even before Adobe Reader. I've never even heard of half the products Google puts at number 1 in their results. I'd expect a fair ranking to put them much lower.

In fact, searching for Maps and Images on Bing returns Google for the first results! Is it an anti-trust violation to name your products intelligently???

But they don't return Bing maps and Bing images first. Rightfully some of the searches above should return google first. Email for example or even Calendar. But returning Google Wallet first for a search for Wallet, at the expense of other more relevent results? What about that 10th result who got pushed to the next page? How does that affect his business, because Google gives itself preferential treatment?

Email - Gmail #1

Books - Google Books#1. Why is this ranked higher than amazon?

Calendar - Google Calendar #1, Yahoo Calendar #3, Live Calendar #52

News - Google News #1, Yahoo News #8, Microsoft News #50

Videos - Google Videos #1, Youtube #2. I realize youtube is a Google product, but seriously? How is Youtube not #1?

Your search terms seem very hand picked to prove a point.

Now, searches for News, Gmail, Images, Videos, Maps and other product names return google first. But that sort-of makes sense, since those are the product names...

Aside from gmail, those are extremely generic terms. A search for Earth brings up Google earth at number one. It seems a little strange that a search for something as generic as "Wallet", a relatively unknown and new google product, appears #1 in the search results. Or what about Reader, the name of a widely used Adobe product. Google Reader appears #1 even before Adobe Reader. I've never even heard of half the products Google puts at number 1 in their results. I'd expect a fair ranking to put them much lower.

In fact, searching for Maps and Images on Bing returns Google for the first results! Is it an anti-trust violation to name your products intelligently???

But they don't return Bing maps and Bing images first. Rightfully some of the searches above should return google first. Email for example or even Calendar. But returning Google Wallet first for a search for Wallet, at the expense of other more relevent results? What about that 10th result who got pushed to the next page? How does that affect his business, because Google gives itself preferential treatment?

Email - Gmail #1

Books - Google Books#1. Why is this ranked higher than amazon?

Calendar - Google Calendar #1, Yahoo Calendar #3, Live Calendar #52

News - Google News #1, Yahoo News #8, Microsoft News #50

Videos - Google Videos #1, Youtube #2. I realize youtube is a Google product, but seriously? How is Youtube not #1?

Your search terms seem very hand picked to prove a point.

Now, searches for News, Gmail, Images, Videos, Maps and other product names return google first. But that sort-of makes sense, since those are the product names...

Aside from gmail, those are extremely generic terms. A search for Earth brings up Google earth at number one. It seems a little strange that a search for something as generic as "Wallet", a relatively unknown and new google product, appears #1 in the search results. Or what about Reader, the name of a widely used Adobe product. Google Reader appears #1 even before Adobe Reader. I've never even heard of half the products Google puts at number 1 in their results. I'd expect a fair ranking to put them much lower.

In fact, searching for Maps and Images on Bing returns Google for the first results! Is it an anti-trust violation to name your products intelligently???

But they don't return Bing maps and Bing images first. Rightfully some of the searches above should return google first. Email for example or even Calendar. But returning Google Wallet first for a search for Wallet, at the expense of other more relevent results? What about that 10th result who got pushed to the next page? How does that affect his business, because Google gives itself preferential treatment?

Email - Gmail #1

Books - Google Books#1. Why is this ranked higher than amazon?

Calendar - Google Calendar #1, Yahoo Calendar #3, Live Calendar #52

News - Google News #1, Yahoo News #8, Microsoft News #50

Videos - Google Videos #1, Youtube #2. I realize youtube is a Google product, but seriously? How is Youtube not #1?

Your search terms seem very hand picked to prove a point.

Now, searches for News, Gmail, Images, Videos, Maps and other product names return google first. But that sort-of makes sense, since those are the product names...

Aside from gmail, those are extremely generic terms. A search for Earth brings up Google earth at number one. It seems a little strange that a search for something as generic as "Wallet", a relatively unknown and new google product, appears #1 in the search results. Or what about Reader, the name of a widely used Adobe product. Google Reader appears #1 even before Adobe Reader. I've never even heard of half the products Google puts at number 1 in their results. I'd expect a fair ranking to put them much lower.

In fact, searching for Maps and Images on Bing returns Google for the first results! Is it an anti-trust violation to name your products intelligently???

But they don't return Bing maps and Bing images first. Rightfully some of the searches above should return google first. Email for example or even Calendar. But returning Google Wallet first for a search for Wallet, at the expense of other more relevent results? What about that 10th result who got pushed to the next page? How does that affect his business, because Google gives itself preferential treatment?

For those who are not interested in the fact that you browse with rockmelt and search directly from the URL bar, but prefer shorter URLs which they can easily review in the status bar, here's a better URL for the same search (I also took the liberty to fix your misspelling of "black"):

http://www.google.com/search?q=the+black+wind+howls

Google runs things like the Google transparency report:

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/

It's government's worst nightmare, a large corporate with a major prescence that doesn't bow down to it's every whim.

This is in stark contrast to the likes of Microsoft, Apple, and Facebook, who gladly do what government wants. How much of a share of social networking does Facebook own? how much of a share of the music player market does Apple own, whilst using that share to tie people in with DRM on movies, and previously music to force them to replace with more Apple products or lose their content?

This isn't about whether Google has a monopoly or not, it's about fall into line and play ball, or we'll fuck your business over.

It's not illegal to be a monopoly. It's illegal to abuse that power. So, let's look at the main categories of anti-trust abuse that have been prosecuted in the past:

Limiting Supply - there's no way Google is doing that...

Predatory Pricing - They have always been free, as are the competitors. Then again, could that be classified as predatory I guess...

Price Discrimination - The same as above

Refusal to deal - Not that I've heard of...

Exclusive Dealing - Not that I've heard of either

Product Bundling - This is tricky. Sure, their products integrate. But then again you need to sign up for each one separately. There's no "Use search and automatically get this other product"...

So, either they will need to go out and tread new territory with little legal precedent to lead the way. Not saying it should or shouldn't be done, but just that it's a relatively new area.

Additionally, I really find the line who said that it was 'only fair' that Google put its own sites on higher placements than competitors odd. Let's show a few examples:

Free Email - GMail is #5 on the list for me. Yahoo, Mail.com, Hotmail and GMX.com are all above it...

ebooks - Google Books is #6 on the list. Ebooks.com, Amazon, Project Gutenberg, Barnes and Noble and Free-ebooks.net are all above it...

Online Calendar - Google Calendar is #3 on the list.

US News - Google News isn't even on the first page for me (not even in an ad)...

Shopping - Google Shopping is #2 behind Shopping.com

Now, searches for News, Gmail, Images, Videos, Maps and other product names return google first. But that sort-of makes sense, since those are the product names...

In fact, searching for Maps and Images on Bing returns Google for the first results! Is it an anti-trust violation to name your products intelligently???

It's not illegal to be a monopoly. It's illegal to abuse that power. So, let's look at the main categories of anti-trust abuse that have been prosecuted in the past:

Limiting Supply - there's no way Google is doing that...

Predatory Pricing - They have always been free, as are the competitors. Then again, could that be classified as predatory I guess...

Price Discrimination - The same as above

Refusal to deal - Not that I've heard of...

Exclusive Dealing - Not that I've heard of either

Product Bundling - This is tricky. Sure, their products integrate. But then again you need to sign up for each one separately. There's no "Use search and automatically get this other product"...

So, either they will need to go out and tread new territory with little legal precedent to lead the way. Not saying it should or shouldn't be done, but just that it's a relatively new area.

Additionally, I really find the line who said that it was 'only fair' that Google put its own sites on higher placements than competitors odd. Let's show a few examples:

Free Email - GMail is #5 on the list for me. Yahoo, Mail.com, Hotmail and GMX.com are all above it...

ebooks - Google Books is #6 on the list. Ebooks.com, Amazon, Project Gutenberg, Barnes and Noble and Free-ebooks.net are all above it...

Online Calendar - Google Calendar is #3 on the list.

US News - Google News isn't even on the first page for me (not even in an ad)...

Shopping - Google Shopping is #2 behind Shopping.com

Now, searches for News, Gmail, Images, Videos, Maps and other product names return google first. But that sort-of makes sense, since those are the product names...

In fact, searching for Maps and Images on Bing returns Google for the first results! Is it an anti-trust violation to name your products intelligently???

It's not illegal to be a monopoly. It's illegal to abuse that power. So, let's look at the main categories of anti-trust abuse that have been prosecuted in the past:

Limiting Supply - there's no way Google is doing that...

Predatory Pricing - They have always been free, as are the competitors. Then again, could that be classified as predatory I guess...

Price Discrimination - The same as above

Refusal to deal - Not that I've heard of...

Exclusive Dealing - Not that I've heard of either

Product Bundling - This is tricky. Sure, their products integrate. But then again you need to sign up for each one separately. There's no "Use search and automatically get this other product"...

So, either they will need to go out and tread new territory with little legal precedent to lead the way. Not saying it should or shouldn't be done, but just that it's a relatively new area.

Additionally, I really find the line who said that it was 'only fair' that Google put its own sites on higher placements than competitors odd. Let's show a few examples:

Free Email - GMail is #5 on the list for me. Yahoo, Mail.com, Hotmail and GMX.com are all above it...

ebooks - Google Books is #6 on the list. Ebooks.com, Amazon, Project Gutenberg, Barnes and Noble and Free-ebooks.net are all above it...

Online Calendar - Google Calendar is #3 on the list.

US News - Google News isn't even on the first page for me (not even in an ad)...

Shopping - Google Shopping is #2 behind Shopping.com

Now, searches for News, Gmail, Images, Videos, Maps and other product names return google first. But that sort-of makes sense, since those are the product names...

In fact, searching for Maps and Images on Bing returns Google for the first results! Is it an anti-trust violation to name your products intelligently???

It's not illegal to be a monopoly. It's illegal to abuse that power. So, let's look at the main categories of anti-trust abuse that have been prosecuted in the past:

Limiting Supply - there's no way Google is doing that...

Predatory Pricing - They have always been free, as are the competitors. Then again, could that be classified as predatory I guess...

Price Discrimination - The same as above

Refusal to deal - Not that I've heard of...

Exclusive Dealing - Not that I've heard of either

Product Bundling - This is tricky. Sure, their products integrate. But then again you need to sign up for each one separately. There's no "Use search and automatically get this other product"...

So, either they will need to go out and tread new territory with little legal precedent to lead the way. Not saying it should or shouldn't be done, but just that it's a relatively new area.

Additionally, I really find the line who said that it was 'only fair' that Google put its own sites on higher placements than competitors odd. Let's show a few examples:

Free Email - GMail is #5 on the list for me. Yahoo, Mail.com, Hotmail and GMX.com are all above it...

ebooks - Google Books is #6 on the list. Ebooks.com, Amazon, Project Gutenberg, Barnes and Noble and Free-ebooks.net are all above it...

Online Calendar - Google Calendar is #3 on the list.

US News - Google News isn't even on the first page for me (not even in an ad)...

Shopping - Google Shopping is #2 behind Shopping.com

Now, searches for News, Gmail, Images, Videos, Maps and other product names return google first. But that sort-of makes sense, since those are the product names...

In fact, searching for Maps and Images on Bing returns Google for the first results! Is it an anti-trust violation to name your products intelligently???

It's not illegal to be a monopoly. It's illegal to abuse that power. So, let's look at the main categories of anti-trust abuse that have been prosecuted in the past:

Limiting Supply - there's no way Google is doing that...

Predatory Pricing - They have always been free, as are the competitors. Then again, could that be classified as predatory I guess...

Price Discrimination - The same as above

Refusal to deal - Not that I've heard of...

Exclusive Dealing - Not that I've heard of either

Product Bundling - This is tricky. Sure, their products integrate. But then again you need to sign up for each one separately. There's no "Use search and automatically get this other product"...

So, either they will need to go out and tread new territory with little legal precedent to lead the way. Not saying it should or shouldn't be done, but just that it's a relatively new area.

Additionally, I really find the line who said that it was 'only fair' that Google put its own sites on higher placements than competitors odd. Let's show a few examples:

Free Email - GMail is #5 on the list for me. Yahoo, Mail.com, Hotmail and GMX.com are all above it...

ebooks - Google Books is #6 on the list. Ebooks.com, Amazon, Project Gutenberg, Barnes and Noble and Free-ebooks.net are all above it...

Online Calendar - Google Calendar is #3 on the list.

US News - Google News isn't even on the first page for me (not even in an ad)...

Shopping - Google Shopping is #2 behind Shopping.com

Now, searches for News, Gmail, Images, Videos, Maps and other product names return google first. But that sort-of makes sense, since those are the product names...

In fact, searching for Maps and Images on Bing returns Google for the first results! Is it an anti-trust violation to name your products intelligently???

If you're going to Africa, you should take The Bell Curve. It'll explain why everything around you is a load of fucked-up shit.

That's right! They changed their mind. But they can't erase the fact that it happened. It was so widely publicized I didn't think you needed a citation.

Right, big deal, the app calls the browser to do something in the background while the screen is locked. However, you may be scared after reading the following PDF Systematic Detection of Capability Leaks in Stock Android Smartphones -- I was!

Jump to page 9 for the table.

Three HTC phones allow rouge apps (without the defined permissions) to record phone calls and send SMS! The SMS example is neat as they broadcast an intent with the phone number in it; then stock apps on the phones actually send the message. Also, the Samsung Epic 4G allows rouge apps to follow a similar method to wipe the phone to factory defaults! Most of the exploits are in the default packages that come with the bloated firmware from either the device maker or carrier. The Google Nexus phones were the safest as they had the fewest apps installed.

From the PDF:

"...by simply including a premium number in the intent, the built-in app will start sending SMS messages to this premium number!"

"For example, the explicit leak of CALL PHONE capability in Samsung Epic 4G involves passing a component a “technical assistance” phone number, which it calls after considerable processing. Similarly, all the tested HTC phones export the RECORD AUDIO permission, which allows any untrusted app to specify which file to write recorded audio to without asking for the RECORD AUDIO permission."

I really loved using Amarok back in the day, before the big UI revamp in the 2.x releases... this unfortunately seems like it hasn't evolved yet into something I'd like to use. I hope that it will find a lot of happy users, as the team is very dedicated, but I'll be sticking with Clementine over here. It's an Amarok 1.4 fork that's been the product of a lot of time, effort and love, and I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a quality library-based player. Still cross-platform, too! Check it out: http://code.google.com/p/clementine-player/

Fair enough. But I'm sure someone thought of this before 1996.

Sure, but this is a legal decision. You can't throw someone in jail because "you're sure they did it." You need evidence. So find evidence someone was doing this before 1996. Same thing.

More to the point, it just shows how brutally broken the patent system is when a completely obvious (but useful) idea, trivial to implement and trivial to understand without reading about how it was made*, can be used to legally block the sale of an entire product fifteen years after it was invented, during which time the entire industry exploded and was reinvented several times.

Actually, it shows that the system is working properly. We don't throw people in jail because we're "sure they did it". We throw them in jail because we've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they did it. Here, the bar is lower - more likely than not. But if you can't provide evidence to show a patent is more likely than not obvious, given the prior art that existed at the time of invention, and a patent results, then the system is working properly. This is justice, not emotion.

The point "trivial to understand without reading about how it was made" is important: the only reason the patent system exists at all is to convince inventors to describe the details of their inventions to the public. Without the patent system, the theory goes, we would have a lot more trade secrets and we would lose the secrets of useful technology. So when you have a patent describing something that could trivially be re-implemented without underlying knowledge of how it was made -- something like "automatically link text that appears to be in a certain format" or "swipe to unlock" or "arrange buttons in a rectangular grid" -- there is no value to society. So it shouldn't be patentable.

If no one ever thought of combining chocolate and peanut butter, then the Reese's cup is pretty freakin' inventive. Even if it's trivial to do without reading how it was made. No one even ever had the idea, so, the inventor's disclosure is really important to the public.

Better example? White chocolate and caviar. WTF? Fish and sweets? No, it's incredible. And no one would ever have thought of it, if it weren't for the inventors, even though it's relatively trivial to implement.

The North Wind howls... at your petty attempt at a CT analogy.

Ugh. The *Black* wind howls

This is trivial. Linky: SL4A

I don't even have iPhone, but Apple's Siri seems much more personal. They've made it a character, your friend.

You mean like Clippy?

You know you can still go to http://www.google.com/ right?

So far Apple isn't doing much to stop Google from doing this. But Apple got the first mover advantage. So Google has some serious catching up. Google is no wimp too.

I doubt Apple will even try to stop Google, because speaking to your computer is nothing either of these companies invented, and has been around in real life applications as well as in works of fictions for decades.

My old Razr (not the smartphone) had simple voice dialing. Yes, you can still buy this phone today!
And Android has has had seemingly forever, as well as accessibility options for voice playback of messages and emails.

Several other phones have had this as well, so if anything Apple might be the one infringing here.

Far from what the carefully crafted ads you see on TV show, SIRI has some maddening limitations and usability issues. I've watched people try two or three times to get the phone do do what they want and ultimately give up and just do it manually.

Yes, but there are many autopilots that can relieve the operator from the duties of flying so that they can focus on operating the camera. Also, I could be mistaken, but I believe quadcopters/multicopters might be a little easier to fly than a conventional helicopter. At least, in my (admittedly entry-level) research into the subject, multicopters seem to be the platform of choice for most drone hobbyists (excluding fixed-wing designs, at least).

Yes, but there are many autopilots that can relieve the operator from the duties of flying so that they can focus on operating the camera. Also, I could be mistaken, but I believe quadcopters/multicopters might be a little easier to fly than a conventional helicopter. At least, in my (admittedly entry-level) research into the subject, multicopters seem to be the platform of choice for most drone hobbyists (excluding fixed-wing designs, at least).

Every state has a building code. The most widely used one is the International Building Code. In each case, HVAC is required AS IS A MINIMUM LEVEL OF INSULATION. IOW, you can not build without some level of insulation. Likewise, it requires a certified BUILDING heating (as opposed to spot, like you suggest), OR that you show the LOCAL CIVIC ENGINEER AT THE PERMITTING PLACE that you have a BETTER SYSTEM. IOW, if you are not going to make use of a certified HVAC system, then you have to show proof that it will not only do the job, but do it safely. That is the whole purpose of a permit.

Just several years ago, I built a deck on my house. Because of insurance issues, we decide to pull a permit. I had to show roughly how it was built, how close it was to our house, the footings for the piles and show that no new gas/electricity/water was going to be run. I then had 3 inspections. The first was on the extra pillings that I put in, and they wanted to make sure that they were deep enough (they were). The second was when it was framed, that we did the right things (I used 2x10s, for joists, while 2x6s were minimum, but most would have used 2x8s). The guy was impressed by the work that we did. Said it was overbuilt, but that it was rock solid. Finally, was the final inspection. And this was for a SIMPLE DECK.

Now, I am about to finish the basement and that will absolutely require a permit . That will mean that I need to show that the insulation is sufficient (it had insulation, so not a problem) and that the HVAC will handle things (the furnace is rated for the whole house, but I will have to add a duct into one area, that will have a sliding wall. Likewise, I have to show plumbing (I have multiple drains already built in, but still need to add water; In one sink, we are bringing in soft and hard water ) and electrical i.e. I will run 220 through the basement to the garage for future use (electric car, powertools (table saw, radial saw, etc), etc), as well as will have to show outlets around the basement, etc. All of that MUST MEET CODE. No exceptions. Again, I will be stuck with multiple inspections.

So, why do I go through all the hassles on the permits, when I know enough to do this without it?
For starters, I do not want to lose the insurance when I need it most. ALL insurance companies have riders that state that ALL WORK ON THE HOUSE MUST MEET CODE; If you do not have a permit, you can not prove that it met code, so they dump you when they are required to pay for say the flooding of the house, or your house burns down, etc.
Likewise, when we go to sell (we are looking to move to sweden/norway/poland in several years), I want banks willing to do a mortgage on it. Banks are NOT willing to write mortgages UNLESS a home meets code AND BEYOND. Out here, banks require new homes with basements be FULLY insulated to get a mortgage and that is with R-12 minimum.

So, what this shows, is the shortcuts that you want, are not even close to possible. The system is designed to block such foolishness. So, there is a minimum level of expectations (unless you fund your OWN place and will never sell it, that is the case). With what I am suggesting, you can be assured that a minimum level of HVAC and insulation was done. If you bump up insulation in the plans, the inspector WILL check it to make certain that you are accurate and honest. If the law for requiring 100% on-site AE HVAC was required, then local permitting engineers would be set up with guides on what is possible. Basically, a simple program will be set up to say how much HVAC you need based on sq footage and volume combined with insulation combined with amount of windows and size and types. From there, that will say how many BTUs you will use for a year (note that I originally said Heat and AC). By changing various parameters in insulation, you can lower the BTU's required. By adding a geo-thermal HVAC, you have an extreme COP/EER so that a minimum a

http://www.google.com/patents/US5946647

This patent was filed for _and granted_ years before Skype was even conceived. Not sure how you got modded "insightful" given how utterly uninformative and inaccurate your post is...

the first example of a realtime spell checker i encountered in 1997 with MS Word.

And this patent predates that. Filed for on Feb 1, 1996. http://www.google.com/patents/US5946647

So, before you go citing prior art that isn't actually prior, how about you do some basic investigation so you can be informed.

The FDA allows a particular percentage that is greater then 0% of bugs dead bugs to be found and processed in food.

More to this point, for example, "The food colorants cochineal and carmine are made from ground bugs." - True.
For more: Google food dye bug|beetle

Yep. The Great Google Hard Disk Study revealed that no brand was "more reliable" than any other.

Every single manufacturer had troublesome batches and/or models. No brand was immune to this.

FWIW the single biggest factor they found which correlated to failure was heat. If your drive runs hot then expect trouble.

Wait, where in the Rather Poorly Written Google Hard Disk Study, linked by EdZ a few replies away from this one, does it say that reliability didn't vary with brand? All I see related to that is "Failure rates are known to be highly correlated with drive models, manufacturers and vintages [18]. Our results do not contradict this fact," specifically stating that reliability does indeed vary by manufacturer. Given the rather sloppy organization in the paper, however, I wouldn't be surprised if they contradict themselves elsewhere and make the claim that you've cited. Can you show us the quotation that gave you the impression that brand doesn't matter?

http://research.google.com/archive/disk_failures.pdf

In the lower and middle temperature ranges, higher temperatures are not associated with higher failure rates. This is a fairly surprising result, which could indicate that datacenter or server designers have more freedom than previously thought when setting operating temperatures for equipment that contains disk drives. We can conclude that at moderate temperature ranges it is likely that there are other effects which affect failure rates much more strongly than temperatures do.

Study available here.

Haters gotta hate. My current Google avatar is Pinkie Pie.

We're everywhere, aren't we?

That "Not A Clever Pony" ambient/instrumental/electro/EBM stuff I found on your G+ profile just made Audiosurf 20% cooler. Thanks!

I'd say he killed plenty of people: https://www.google.com/#&q=foxconn+suicides

OK, I'll admit that when somebody says "my" X, there's an element of ownership being implied.

But most people understand that that just means "the company's X, which I'm responsible for".

Hence, stuff like "no pointing guns other that at the target on my range".
"no defacing of books in my library"
"if you want something from my maintenance dept., you'll have to check it out"

Most people understand the "my" just means "there's somebody actually responsible for this X, and it's not going to be a tragedy of the commons situation".

Perhaps he should have stripped all qualifying adjectives from the phrase: <del>my corporate </del> network. Then you get into a "network, which network situation":

Bush Rice China Hu Who Koffi Annan - YouTube

In reply to some comments / sentiments in this thread regarding how quick Google is to delete accounts, be wary of creating a Google+ account / user profile.

Amen to this. I tried to setup a business Google+ account based on this link. Follow the link to "Create a Google Page". Create it using an existing (business or otherwise) account, and pray that you have a "real name" or a "birthday" for your business they find acceptable, *because they don't have anything that looks like a business signup page*. If you use a birthday that is unacceptable, they will LOCK your account, and charge you to unlock it (or you can send in your ID to them).

Go ahead -- try it. You get NO WARNING that the birthday is unacceptable, and no chance to avoid the LOCK. I dare you to do it.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn ?

Home schools are not eligible either according to this page.

I'll be thrilled to try it, but the fact that it took this long to get GPU acceleration is kinda sad.

GPU acceleration has been around since Android 1.0; it just wasn't used for all elements. What ICS has done (actually, this was present since Honeycomb) is to enable GPU rendering of all elements within an application window, and to turn this on by default. Dianne Hackborn's written a very nice explanation of it all -- worth a read.

Judging by Android's popularity, though, I doubt that most end users care too much or will even notice the difference. Knowing whether or not something is GPU rendered is appealing only to geeks, methinks.

Haters gotta hate. My current Google avatar is Pinkie Pie.

Open Source licensed code used on the Google Search Appliance is mirrored here.

I'm amazed that they beat the financial crisis. We all know Windows costs a lot for licences and today's governments are very cash-strapped. So like Portugal that recently announced they would not pay for any more Windows upgrades, I'm surprised more countries aren't looking closely at Munich to see if they can reduce their deficits slightly by going this route too.

Both have approximately 0% market share on less popular architectures like PPC. The Chrome V8 javascript engine is ARM or x86, and there is no way to get IE8 supported outside of Windows.

People using your code and improving it without giving anything back? Because that is what Google is doing.

Google is a massive contributor to the open source ecosystem. They contribute an insane amount of source code back to pretty much all the opensource projects they use, regardless of the license the project is distributed under.

Aside from google code (still the most popular opensource hosting site), V8 and Chromium, Google has 1295 individual projects they've opensourced. They also make heaps of patches to popular projects they use, including the linux kernel, python, eclipse, .... etc.

Saying that Google uses opensource software without giving back to the community is just plain wrong.

Does it have the ability to selectively stop/play animations?

There's an extension called Gif Stopper.

The one thing that keeps me off Chrome for serious web browsing is the lack of a **full** equivalent to Tree Style Tab. I've found various attempts, but until something with all the critical features is available, I can't leave Firefox.

And yes, it's that important. I find serious web browsing without tree tabs is basically unusable.

Some analysis of Chrome extensions I've tried follows below, along with a longer explaination of why tree tabs matter.

-----
Why tree tabs are important

Critical features:

* Arrange tabs in a hierarchy (subordinate/superior relationships)
* Links middle-clicked to open in a new tab, open under the current tab
* You can collapse branches of the tabs tree, like a folder tree in Explorer/Outlook
* You can drag tabs around to restructure the tree

  For example, my current top-level hierarchies at work are "PVI clusterfsck", "vern buerg list", "to read", "vmware ctrl alt del", "new server", and "training". "training" has four immediate subtabs, each for various training providers we use at $WORK. Each of those is an exploration of their course hierarchy. I can expand or collapse any section or subsection as my focus changes. I can also bookmark branches for later.

  For me, at least, knowledge isn't linear, it's tree structured. The Back/Forward paradigm is totally inadequate for the task.

-----

Tree Style Tabs (Beta)
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ffididlaalcoegfcalmeldjfnihmoech

  Unfortunately, it's lacking some features. The biggest is that it
doesn't actually replace the tab bar across the top of the screen.
Rather, it gives you a new toolbar button, which, when clicked, drops
down a tree structure. No way to make that appear permanently, that I
can see. (TreeStyleTab appears much like a "side bar" in Firefox.)
The tree structure does reflect which tab opened from which. But I
can't drag tabs or branches to organize them, nor can I
collapse/expand branches.

-----

Tab Sense
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/oiabeebnmckkdjloeofbfladabfhedlg

  Similar to the "Tree Style Tabs (Beta)" above. Same
button-not-a-sidebar issue. Does allow collapse/expand, which is
good. It opens up a new Google Chrome window to hold collapsed tabs
(with the message to minimize it and forget about it), which is rather
kludgey. Still can't drag tabs.

-----

Tabs Manager
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ioigddmjfpphkbamgbaolfkpifddnaje

  Same button-not-a-sidebar issue. Tab structure doesn't appear to
reflect browsing history. Seems to have only two levels, a "folder"
it creates, and all your tabs. Does allow dragging of those tabs, but
I'm not sure what the point is. Can't find a way to create a folder.
I'm not quite sure what the point is.

-----

  Some of these limitations might be due to Chrome's architecture,
rather than the extension programmers. In particular, I suspect
Chrome just doesn't let extensions have enough access to the UI to do
anything really useful. Which is a shame, because Chrome feels so
much faster than Firefox.

The one thing that keeps me off Chrome for serious web browsing is the lack of a **full** equivalent to Tree Style Tab. I've found various attempts, but until something with all the critical features is available, I can't leave Firefox.

And yes, it's that important. I find serious web browsing without tree tabs is basically unusable.

Some analysis of Chrome extensions I've tried follows below, along with a longer explaination of why tree tabs matter.

-----
Why tree tabs are important

Critical features:

* Arrange tabs in a hierarchy (subordinate/superior relationships)
* Links middle-clicked to open in a new tab, open under the current tab
* You can collapse branches of the tabs tree, like a folder tree in Explorer/Outlook
* You can drag tabs around to restructure the tree

  For example, my current top-level hierarchies at work are "PVI clusterfsck", "vern buerg list", "to read", "vmware ctrl alt del", "new server", and "training". "training" has four immediate subtabs, each for various training providers we use at $WORK. Each of those is an exploration of their course hierarchy. I can expand or collapse any section or subsection as my focus changes. I can also bookmark branches for later.

  For me, at least, knowledge isn't linear, it's tree structured. The Back/Forward paradigm is totally inadequate for the task.

-----

Tree Style Tabs (Beta)
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ffididlaalcoegfcalmeldjfnihmoech

  Unfortunately, it's lacking some features. The biggest is that it
doesn't actually replace the tab bar across the top of the screen.
Rather, it gives you a new toolbar button, which, when clicked, drops
down a tree structure. No way to make that appear permanently, that I
can see. (TreeStyleTab appears much like a "side bar" in Firefox.)
The tree structure does reflect which tab opened from which. But I
can't drag tabs or branches to organize them, nor can I
collapse/expand branches.

-----

Tab Sense
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/oiabeebnmckkdjloeofbfladabfhedlg

  Similar to the "Tree Style Tabs (Beta)" above. Same
button-not-a-sidebar issue. Does allow collapse/expand, which is
good. It opens up a new Google Chrome window to hold collapsed tabs
(with the message to minimize it and forget about it), which is rather
kludgey. Still can't drag tabs.

-----

Tabs Manager
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ioigddmjfpphkbamgbaolfkpifddnaje

  Same button-not-a-sidebar issue. Tab structure doesn't appear to
reflect browsing history. Seems to have only two levels, a "folder"
it creates, and all your tabs. Does allow dragging of those tabs, but
I'm not sure what the point is. Can't find a way to create a folder.
I'm not quite sure what the point is.

-----

  Some of these limitations might be due to Chrome's architecture,
rather than the extension programmers. In particular, I suspect
Chrome just doesn't let extensions have enough access to the UI to do
anything really useful. Which is a shame, because Chrome feels so
much faster than Firefox.

The one thing that keeps me off Chrome for serious web browsing is the lack of a **full** equivalent to Tree Style Tab. I've found various attempts, but until something with all the critical features is available, I can't leave Firefox.

And yes, it's that important. I find serious web browsing without tree tabs is basically unusable.

Some analysis of Chrome extensions I've tried follows below, along with a longer explaination of why tree tabs matter.

-----
Why tree tabs are important

Critical features:

* Arrange tabs in a hierarchy (subordinate/superior relationships)
* Links middle-clicked to open in a new tab, open under the current tab
* You can collapse branches of the tabs tree, like a folder tree in Explorer/Outlook
* You can drag tabs around to restructure the tree

  For example, my current top-level hierarchies at work are "PVI clusterfsck", "vern buerg list", "to read", "vmware ctrl alt del", "new server", and "training". "training" has four immediate subtabs, each for various training providers we use at $WORK. Each of those is an exploration of their course hierarchy. I can expand or collapse any section or subsection as my focus changes. I can also bookmark branches for later.

  For me, at least, knowledge isn't linear, it's tree structured. The Back/Forward paradigm is totally inadequate for the task.

-----

Tree Style Tabs (Beta)
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ffididlaalcoegfcalmeldjfnihmoech

  Unfortunately, it's lacking some features. The biggest is that it
doesn't actually replace the tab bar across the top of the screen.
Rather, it gives you a new toolbar button, which, when clicked, drops
down a tree structure. No way to make that appear permanently, that I
can see. (TreeStyleTab appears much like a "side bar" in Firefox.)
The tree structure does reflect which tab opened from which. But I
can't drag tabs or branches to organize them, nor can I
collapse/expand branches.

-----

Tab Sense
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/oiabeebnmckkdjloeofbfladabfhedlg

  Similar to the "Tree Style Tabs (Beta)" above. Same
button-not-a-sidebar issue. Does allow collapse/expand, which is
good. It opens up a new Google Chrome window to hold collapsed tabs
(with the message to minimize it and forget about it), which is rather
kludgey. Still can't drag tabs.

-----

Tabs Manager
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ioigddmjfpphkbamgbaolfkpifddnaje

  Same button-not-a-sidebar issue. Tab structure doesn't appear to
reflect browsing history. Seems to have only two levels, a "folder"
it creates, and all your tabs. Does allow dragging of those tabs, but
I'm not sure what the point is. Can't find a way to create a folder.
I'm not quite sure what the point is.

-----

  Some of these limitations might be due to Chrome's architecture,
rather than the extension programmers. In particular, I suspect
Chrome just doesn't let extensions have enough access to the UI to do
anything really useful. Which is a shame, because Chrome feels so
much faster than Firefox.

All of the appliance source is available at GSA mirror, including the kernel source. I would presume that the appliance doesn't run exactly the same kernel as the Google internal cluster.

I know you were modded down but I just want to say: Fuck the arrogant hypocrites from the Android team and fuck Andy Rubin too!

--
Another asshole joins Google.

Your information is a bit old. Reproduction of rats in micro-gravity and zero-gravity has been being studied the last few years: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=rats+reproduction+microgravity

They tried everything from taking pregnant rats into space to observe the effects on fetal development to fertilizing embryos in microgravity to the effects of microgravity on the reproductive organs of rats.