Take a look at the books which get OCR'ed with "email". As near as I can tell, all of them before a certain point are supposed to be "small". Methinks Google should think about adding a bit of data-sensitivity to their OCR.
If you follow links on that ngram (and play with the date ranges a bit), you find this query that seems to be showing a lot of those references to Abe were in the meta-data.
A little more digging finds this little gem. Which appears to just be mis-dated. I suspect it was written in 1890 from looking very carefully at the copyright page.
It also very possible that some of those references are to others people with the same name. Like this one and this one.
Well, actually it's irrelevant to this topic. TFA mentions people believing "Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)". I find a couple of things interesting.
Um, first let me comment that I believe the most likely truth is that Obama is correctly eligible to be president.
First, the the survey doesn't seem to distinguish between "Obama was not born in the U.S." and "It's unclear if Obama was born in the U.S.". Further, a lot of readers here seem to muddy those two with "Obama isn't eligible to be president because he was not born in the U.S.". Those are all very different stances.
Secondly, your description seems to pretty clearly describe the situation. To paraphrase you (and not as well): "The question was raised. Some people think it was answered. Some don't.". Hmm, that sounds like a pretty good example of "unclear" to me.
My personal opinion is that there was nothing wrong with his eligibility. However, there is probably something on his birth certificate that would be embarrassing. Embarrassing enough that he hasn't personally requested a hundred certified copies and mailed them to various news outlets. With lots of fanfare. It would have ended the whole mess quickly and neatly.
However, until such clear evidence is presented to the media-at-large (and thereby the public-at-large), the truth will be unclear.
I'm just curious how the formulators of the study concluded that "the stimulus package" definitely did not increase unemployment.
A quick google tells me that "the stimulus package" was passed in early 2009.
A look at the gov's data tells me that the seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate rose fairly-steadily for the rest of 2009 and is currently noticeably higher than Jan/Feb of 2009. Now, I'm not qualified to do the appropriate numerical analysis of the numbers. But, the curve seems to get a bit steeper right after Feb '09.
Seems that claiming a belief that "the stimulus package" caused unemployment to rise is patently false, is, well, weak.
I don't recall the *Federal* government mandating auto-insurance, I believe that all of the states do. But, that is the point. The Constitution explicitly dictates the powers that Congress has. All other powers "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Go read the tenth amendment. It is considerably less muddily worded than some of the Bill of Rights.
However, the point is that your "Network Admin II" generally has much access to wreak havoc as a CFO.
And, the comparison to janitors (and all facilities people) above is fair. Three major differences: a) PHBs tend to understand both the effort involved in and risks associated with the facilities people. b) Facilities people have a much stronger basis for collective-bargaining responses to PHBs. Even in a non-union shop, the PHBs know that the appropriate union would be more than happy to come-in and "help" a downtrodden janitor/HVAC guy/... c) There is a long and established history of how facilities people "should" be treated. Our industry is, at most, a toddler. Probably better said to still be an infant.
My mother insists that her old eyes can read the all-caps better. Next time I'm in town, I plan to sneak onto her computer and increase the base font size.
Actually, it may not even be that involved. It is pretty trivial for competitors to watch each others prices and stay close. In fact, it is the exact same mechanism that allows price-wars to work. In this case though, no one sees a need to try to sweep up the entire market. They've really got no incentive to. None of the major carriers could absorb the customers of one of their peers without crippling their own network.
but MaBell is what you call too big to fight via startup..
Um, you might want to re-think your example. Not only is she one of the few examples of anti-trust action actually having a major impact on a huge corporation in US history, her entire profit-model prior to 1984 was ripped to shreds by MCI.
Further, it's one of the *very* few examples of government-intervention having a solid, clear benefit to consumers in all of history. I wouldn't be typing this post on the modern internet and people would definitely not be reading it on their smartphones without that case.
So, I can invalidate your evidence by taking a swing at your camera? Days, or weeks, after you took the incriminating pictures and copied them to another medium?
Methinks you need to think that through a bit more.
Further, most of the new releases by their flagship authors include an electronic, DRM-free, please-distribute-this CD copy bound inside the cover.
And, they wholeheartedly approve of the guy who maintains a copy of all of those CD images and distributes them to everyone. http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/
Shouldn't that go both ways? We (the public) made an agreement with Walt (and his corporate heirs) that his little project about some mouse named Willie would be protected for a number of years. In return, he'd give it over to us at the end of that term.
Shouldn't that go both ways? We (the public) made an agreement with Walt (and his corporate heirs) that his little project about some mouse named Willie would be protected for a number of years. In return, he'd give it over to us at the end of that term.
One could even argue that Moses was engaged in work-for-hire. Thus, the copyright does belong to God. He's still living. But then, He effectively "owns" all of creation. So, all proceeds are His anyway.
Interesting. We had to upgrade desktops to support VS2010 when we started to bring it in to compliment Java/Eclipse/... at my last job. VS used even more RAM than Eclipse and the rest of the stack we were now running (IIS, SQL Server ) was also heavier than the Java stack we'd been using (WAS/Derby).
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking that was the date of first publication for The Economist.
Mind, I'd be more impressed if Google were also tracking the content of every hieroglyph and cuneiform tablet ever found.
It will ever be thus, unless someone invents a time machine (or at least a time viewer).
I suspect they plan to...
Take a look at the books which get OCR'ed with "email". As near as I can tell, all of them before a certain point are supposed to be "small". Methinks Google should think about adding a bit of data-sensitivity to their OCR.
If you follow links on that ngram (and play with the date ranges a bit), you find this query that seems to be showing a lot of those references to Abe were in the meta-data.
A little more digging finds this little gem. Which appears to just be mis-dated. I suspect it was written in 1890 from looking very carefully at the copyright page.
It also very possible that some of those references are to others people with the same name. Like this one and this one.
Which, at a quick glance, seems to make my point more strongly.
Well, actually it's irrelevant to this topic. TFA mentions people believing "Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)". I find a couple of things interesting.
Um, first let me comment that I believe the most likely truth is that Obama is correctly eligible to be president.
First, the the survey doesn't seem to distinguish between "Obama was not born in the U.S." and "It's unclear if Obama was born in the U.S.". Further, a lot of readers here seem to muddy those two with "Obama isn't eligible to be president because he was not born in the U.S.". Those are all very different stances.
Secondly, your description seems to pretty clearly describe the situation. To paraphrase you (and not as well): "The question was raised. Some people think it was answered. Some don't.". Hmm, that sounds like a pretty good example of "unclear" to me.
My personal opinion is that there was nothing wrong with his eligibility. However, there is probably something on his birth certificate that would be embarrassing. Embarrassing enough that he hasn't personally requested a hundred certified copies and mailed them to various news outlets. With lots of fanfare. It would have ended the whole mess quickly and neatly.
However, until such clear evidence is presented to the media-at-large (and thereby the public-at-large), the truth will be unclear.
A quick google tells me that "the stimulus package" was passed in early 2009.
A look at the gov's data tells me that the seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate rose fairly-steadily for the rest of 2009 and is currently noticeably higher than Jan/Feb of 2009. Now, I'm not qualified to do the appropriate numerical analysis of the numbers. But, the curve seems to get a bit steeper right after Feb '09.
Seems that claiming a belief that "the stimulus package" caused unemployment to rise is patently false, is, well, weak.
I don't recall the *Federal* government mandating auto-insurance, I believe that all of the states do. But, that is the point. The Constitution explicitly dictates the powers that Congress has. All other powers "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Go read the tenth amendment. It is considerably less muddily worded than some of the Bill of Rights.
However, the point is that your "Network Admin II" generally has much access to wreak havoc as a CFO. And, the comparison to janitors (and all facilities people) above is fair. Three major differences: a) PHBs tend to understand both the effort involved in and risks associated with the facilities people. b) Facilities people have a much stronger basis for collective-bargaining responses to PHBs. Even in a non-union shop, the PHBs know that the appropriate union would be more than happy to come-in and "help" a downtrodden janitor/HVAC guy/... c) There is a long and established history of how facilities people "should" be treated. Our industry is, at most, a toddler. Probably better said to still be an infant.
Get a better editor. Or bookmark this: http://www.dpriver.com/pp/sqlformat.htm
Now I sincerely wish two things: 1) I had mod-points 2) You posted non-anon so they'd matter.
Um, SQL isn't case-sensitive. That's just a coding convention.
My mother insists that her old eyes can read the all-caps better. Next time I'm in town, I plan to sneak onto her computer and increase the base font size.
Never mind. Google is clearly correct.
I use NumLock. Well, I make sure it's always on. I guess I never un-use NumLock. At least when using a full-size keyboard.
Pause/Break is handy in Windows. Try hitting Win-Pause sometime.
Actually, it may not even be that involved. It is pretty trivial for competitors to watch each others prices and stay close. In fact, it is the exact same mechanism that allows price-wars to work. In this case though, no one sees a need to try to sweep up the entire market. They've really got no incentive to. None of the major carriers could absorb the customers of one of their peers without crippling their own network.
but MaBell is what you call too big to fight via startup..
Um, you might want to re-think your example. Not only is she one of the few examples of anti-trust action actually having a major impact on a huge corporation in US history, her entire profit-model prior to 1984 was ripped to shreds by MCI.
Further, it's one of the *very* few examples of government-intervention having a solid, clear benefit to consumers in all of history. I wouldn't be typing this post on the modern internet and people would definitely not be reading it on their smartphones without that case.
Like this?
So, I can invalidate your evidence by taking a swing at your camera? Days, or weeks, after you took the incriminating pictures and copied them to another medium?
Methinks you need to think that through a bit more.
Further, most of the new releases by their flagship authors include an electronic, DRM-free, please-distribute-this CD copy bound inside the cover.
And, they wholeheartedly approve of the guy who maintains a copy of all of those CD images and distributes them to everyone. http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/
Shouldn't that go both ways? We (the public) made an agreement with Walt (and his corporate heirs) that his little project about some mouse named Willie would be protected for a number of years. In return, he'd give it over to us at the end of that term.
One side has reneged on the deal.
Grr. Wrong parent.
Shouldn't that go both ways? We (the public) made an agreement with Walt (and his corporate heirs) that his little project about some mouse named Willie would be protected for a number of years. In return, he'd give it over to us at the end of that term.
One side has reneged on the deal.
One could even argue that Moses was engaged in work-for-hire. Thus, the copyright does belong to God. He's still living. But then, He effectively "owns" all of creation. So, all proceeds are His anyway.
Interesting. We had to upgrade desktops to support VS2010 when we started to bring it in to compliment Java/Eclipse/... at my last job. VS used even more RAM than Eclipse and the rest of the stack we were now running (IIS, SQL Server ) was also heavier than the Java stack we'd been using (WAS/Derby).